Liverpool threaten to breakaway from Premier League TV rights deal

[Tiresias]

http://www.surrealfootball.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Untitleddrawing-3.jpg

 

http://www.surrealfootball.com/2011/10/11/flowchart-the-liverpool-premier-league-revolt-survival-guide/

[Consortium of one]

An article on the BBC site says that Sir Alex would be against this and good on him.  Allowing that to happen would further the gap between top clubs and the rest.  Any league has to function as a collective and the big clubs need the smaller clubs more than some are willing to believe.  Just look at La Liga, if all but the top clubs have to walk a tightrope to pay their players how is competition maintained?  You need to compete against quality week in and week out.

 

I also think it would be prudent to see how much impact the Financial Fair Play rules have before jumping to any conclusions.  If Man City are brought back into line a lot of angst will go away.

[Dr Venkman]

it's nice to support a club that aims to progress through signing the best footballers possible for the amount we can afford. rather than letting an old bloke spunk a RIDICULOUS amount of money on players and then complain because they're not getting more than everyone else.

[Ishmael]

Manchester United and Chelsea are among several clubs who have moved to distance themselves from Liverpool's proposal to break from the Premier League's collective selling model.

 

It is understood that Manchester United, who claim to have 333m fans globally and have targeted overseas sponsorship revenue as a route to increase income, will oppose any moves to challenge the status quo under which the Premier League sells television rights overseas on behalf of all 20 clubs.

 

A spokesman for Chelsea said: "We are supportive of the Premier League on this and want to continue with the way they sell collectively."

 

United insiders pointed out that their chief executive David Gill had repeatedly underlined the support of the club's owners, the Glazer family, for the collective model. Appearing before a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year, Gill said "the collective selling of the television rights has clearly been a success and it has made things more competitive".

 

It is also understood that Arsenal, Manchester City and Spurs will continue to back the collective selling arrangement, under which revenues from overseas broadcasters are shared out equally. Last season, each club received £17.9m.

 

The public stance of other big clubs will come as a disappointment to Liverpool, who were understood to believe that others would back them up. Ayre said that the fact that clubs in other countries, notably Real Madrid and Barcelona in Spain, negotiated their own rights deals gave them a growing financial advantage over English clubs.

 

Without the support of those who stand to benefit most the idea would be dead in the water, because none of the League's smaller clubs would vote for something that would hugely disadvantage them.

 

Overseas revenues could outstrip the domestic deal, currently worth £2.1bn over three years, for the first time when the Premier League launches its tender process next year.

 

Liverpool would need to persuade 13 of their fellow Premier League clubs of the merit of the plan in order to force through the change. Any significant change to the Premier League rulebook requires a two thirds majority.

 

Liverpool's managing director Ian Ayre became the first representative of a big Premier League team since Peter Kenyon at Manchester United in 2003 to challenge the collective sale of overseas TV rights, which brought in £1.4bn over the three years to 2012/13.

 

Ayre said: "Is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others.

 

"At some point we definitely feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs."

 

The top 5 clubs say no to Liverpool.

[brummie]

The ultimate expression of self interest and f*** everyone else.

 

Liverpool are clearly faced with Man City settling into their top four, money-syphoning position, and no way to even begin to compete financially. They can't afford to build a new ground, they don't want to share one with Everton, they can't increase their revenue beyond the Sky deal increasing in value, and they're watching the likes of Man City easily overtake them, and Tottenham catch up with them.

 

 

They can well afford to build a new ground, their hesitation is more that they'd like to refurb Anfield, but there's too much red tape from the local council.  Revenue has increased greatly over the past couple of years, Ian Ayre being the one to achieve it.  We will have the biggest replica shirt deal in the country starting next season, and the deal with Standard Chartered is worth 20 million a season, rather than the 8 million Carlsberg deal.  So other than the City comment your first paragraph is rubbish.

 

Say what you like about the dynasty that Man United built, but they earn so much now because they did it by incrementally improving their ground and providing the on-pitch success to do so. Liverpool don't want to build a bigger ground because it costs money (why can't Henry put his hand in his pocket?), and can't get the on-field success to do the same, so they want to do this, take the short cut and f*** the cost.

 

There you go again, writing about things you know nothing about, of course Liverpool want to build or do up Anfield.  FSG were prepared to spend a fortune to stay at  Anfield because of it's history and the feelings fans have for it, but the local council have put obstacles in the way, and will only go with the original 65,000 seater.  Over the three years of the previous owners Liverpool declined at a rapid rate, and money was syphoned off to their own pockets and making big interest payments on the loan they took out to buy the club, so success on the pitch was hindered considerably.

 

Corny thought it is to say it, Bill Shankly truly would be turning in his grave to see this kind of self-serving, low rent behaviour.

 

Shanks would have been turning in his grave from 1992 onwards.

 

 

Well, why don't you stop talking about it and rebuild Anfield / build a new stadium and increase your revenue that way (or even, you know, qualify for the CL again) rather than looking for a quick fix in grasping as much money as you can from overseas and as a by product fucking up the majority of the premier league in the process?

 

You might have increased your revenue in the last two years, but you clearly haven't done it enough if you have to resort to this kind of thing.

 

It makes a small amount of sick come up in my throat  when I hear people go on about things being done "the Liverpool way". Having read that article, it is going to make me vomit my head off my shoulders in future.

 

Fucking hypocrites, you really are becoming as utterly classless as Chelsea.

[TaylorJ_01]

Manchester United and Chelsea are among several clubs who have moved to distance themselves from Liverpool's proposal to break from the Premier League's collective selling model.

 

It is understood that Manchester United, who claim to have 333m fans globally and have targeted overseas sponsorship revenue as a route to increase income, will oppose any moves to challenge the status quo under which the Premier League sells television rights overseas on behalf of all 20 clubs.

 

A spokesman for Chelsea said: "We are supportive of the Premier League on this and want to continue with the way they sell collectively."

 

United insiders pointed out that their chief executive David Gill had repeatedly underlined the support of the club's owners, the Glazer family, for the collective model. Appearing before a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year, Gill said "the collective selling of the television rights has clearly been a success and it has made things more competitive".

 

It is also understood that Arsenal, Manchester City and Spurs will continue to back the collective selling arrangement, under which revenues from overseas broadcasters are shared out equally. Last season, each club received £17.9m.

 

The public stance of other big clubs will come as a disappointment to Liverpool, who were understood to believe that others would back them up. Ayre said that the fact that clubs in other countries, notably Real Madrid and Barcelona in Spain, negotiated their own rights deals gave them a growing financial advantage over English clubs.

 

Without the support of those who stand to benefit most the idea would be dead in the water, because none of the League's smaller clubs would vote for something that would hugely disadvantage them.

 

Overseas revenues could outstrip the domestic deal, currently worth £2.1bn over three years, for the first time when the Premier League launches its tender process next year.

 

Liverpool would need to persuade 13 of their fellow Premier League clubs of the merit of the plan in order to force through the change. Any significant change to the Premier League rulebook requires a two thirds majority.

 

Liverpool's managing director Ian Ayre became the first representative of a big Premier League team since Peter Kenyon at Manchester United in 2003 to challenge the collective sale of overseas TV rights, which brought in £1.4bn over the three years to 2012/13.

 

Ayre said: "Is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others.

 

"At some point we definitely feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs."

 

The top 5 clubs say no to Liverpool.

 

http://thegateway.wikispaces.com/file/view/bitchslap.jpg/157756091/bitchslap.jpg

[Sifu]

Manchester United and Chelsea are among several clubs who have moved to distance themselves from Liverpool's proposal to break from the Premier League's collective selling model.

 

It is understood that Manchester United, who claim to have 333m fans globally and have targeted overseas sponsorship revenue as a route to increase income, will oppose any moves to challenge the status quo under which the Premier League sells television rights overseas on behalf of all 20 clubs.

 

A spokesman for Chelsea said: "We are supportive of the Premier League on this and want to continue with the way they sell collectively."

 

United insiders pointed out that their chief executive David Gill had repeatedly underlined the support of the club's owners, the Glazer family, for the collective model. Appearing before a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year, Gill said "the collective selling of the television rights has clearly been a success and it has made things more competitive".

 

It is also understood that Arsenal, Manchester City and Spurs will continue to back the collective selling arrangement, under which revenues from overseas broadcasters are shared out equally. Last season, each club received £17.9m.

 

The public stance of other big clubs will come as a disappointment to Liverpool, who were understood to believe that others would back them up. Ayre said that the fact that clubs in other countries, notably Real Madrid and Barcelona in Spain, negotiated their own rights deals gave them a growing financial advantage over English clubs.

 

Without the support of those who stand to benefit most the idea would be dead in the water, because none of the League's smaller clubs would vote for something that would hugely disadvantage them.

 

Overseas revenues could outstrip the domestic deal, currently worth £2.1bn over three years, for the first time when the Premier League launches its tender process next year.

 

Liverpool would need to persuade 13 of their fellow Premier League clubs of the merit of the plan in order to force through the change. Any significant change to the Premier League rulebook requires a two thirds majority.

 

Liverpool's managing director Ian Ayre became the first representative of a big Premier League team since Peter Kenyon at Manchester United in 2003 to challenge the collective sale of overseas TV rights, which brought in £1.4bn over the three years to 2012/13.

 

Ayre said: "Is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others.

 

"At some point we definitely feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs."

 

The top 5 clubs say no to Liverpool.

 

[Tiresias]

They understand what a massive PR fuckup this is, especially since it wasn't going to happen anyway in all likelihood.

[timeEd32]

Really happy that Liverpool are going to be left out on their own looking like cocks in this.

[teohgk]

i think Ashley might like this

[Revolution Number 9]

The Liverpool propaganda machine is fully in motion at the moment - there's seemingly 'a fan' on every site trying to defend their club's actions.

 

Not worth saving face, lads, or even trying to - no-one likes you.

I've got one on another site just blatantly making things up to try and convince everyone how great this would be for the lesser clubs. It's like almost all their fans are brainwashed from birth to believe that Liverpool can do no wrong.

[jdckelly]

so Liverpool can't even get the guys who would benefit by far the most Manchester United to agree to this, wow they really didn't even bother doing some basic research for this idea before airing it did they?

PR disaster for Liverpool

[BlueStar]

There's a certain kind of fan (and I use the term loosely) that's the basis for this kind of shit.  I don't want to sound elitist or bigoted about foreign EPL watchers - there are fans of clubs, even the big clubs, who are completely genuine in their support.  But some of the people I've seen on non footy forums, fucking hell.  There's a Canadian guy who started off in the football thread on a forum supporting Man U, then supported Barca in the champions league final, then decided he was a Chelsea fan and a Man U fan, then he became a City fan after some of their 5 goal demolitions this season and last I checked he had a Liverpool sig and a Suarez avatar.  This is within the past year.  In spite of constantly going on about the Premier League and football every day, he remains completely oblivious. Today he referred to Newcastle as "NCFC".  For these guys, teams outside the top five are an irrelevance, they're there to be the Washington Generals to the big clubs Harlem Globetrotters, their purpose in life is to let a £30m Galactico skin five of them and deftly chip the flailing keeper so they can whoop at it like a fireworks display.  Attempting to play in a manner which might get you a point against these teams is akin to foul play, spoiling their spectacle.  The idea of supporting a club when they're shit is just completely alien - why would you reward failure?

 

You remember when big name wrestlers didn't fight each other until the pay per view events and on a Saturday night you saw Hulk Hogan or the Ultimate Warrior walk to the ring in a 10 minute display of fireworks, music, facepaint and posing to fight a guy called Jake Johnson in blue trunks, whose job it was to take each and every one of the main guy's spectacular moves and make him look great?  That's what every club outside the top five is to a large percentage of people who watch football worldwide, Jake Johnson.  Any of these clubs getting uppity and wanting to do things like holding onto a good player for more than a season once in a while when he could be making one of the big clubs even more omgawesome is being a spoilsport to these people.  And that's why stuff like the Liverpool plan or Man City's grotesque display of wealth comes about, because to a certain breed of football fan, that is what football is all about.  We might think it'll ruin the league but for many people it's giving them exactly what they want.

[Revolution Number 9]

TLDR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great post, that's the thing that makes getting a result against those teams all the better for me, knowing your team has p*ssed an unimaginable number of those c***s.

[Consortium of one]

On a side note, John Henry's little prize, the Boston Red Sox have not dealt well at all with their epic collapse.  I can only hope that his leadership and direction produces the same results if Liverpool can't consistently find a spot in the top 4.

[leffe186]

On a side note, John Henry's little prize, the Boston Red Sox have not dealt well at all with their epic collapse.  I can only hope that his leadership and direction produces the same results if Liverpool can't consistently find a spot in the top 4.

 

Yeah, I wondered this too. Red Sox have been hilarious this last week. More of the same at Anfield, please.

[themanupstairs]

There's a certain kind of fan (and I use the term loosely) that's the basis for this kind of s***.  I don't want to sound elitist or bigoted about foreign EPL watchers - there are fans of clubs, even the big clubs, who are completely genuine in their support.  But some of the people I've seen on non footy forums, f***ing hell.  There's a Canadian guy who started off in the football thread on a forum supporting Man U, then supported Barca in the champions league final, then decided he was a Chelsea fan and a Man U fan, then he became a City fan after some of their 5 goal demolitions this season and last I checked he had a Liverpool sig and a Suarez avatar.  This is within the past year.  In spite of constantly going on about the Premier League and football every day, he remains completely oblivious. Today he referred to Newcastle as "NCFC".  For these guys, teams outside the top five are an irrelevance, they're there to be the Washington Generals to the big clubs Harlem Globetrotters, their purpose in life is to let a £30m Galactico skin five of them and deftly chip the flailing keeper so they can whoop at it like a fireworks display.  Attempting to play in a manner which might get you a point against these teams is akin to foul play, spoiling their spectacle.  The idea of supporting a club when they're s*** is just completely alien - why would you reward failure?

 

You remember when big name wrestlers didn't fight each other until the pay per view events and on a Saturday night you saw Hulk Hogan or the Ultimate Warrior walk to the ring in a 10 minute display of fireworks, music, facepaint and posing to fight a guy called Jake Johnson in blue trunks, whose job it was to take each and every one of the main guy's spectacular moves and make him look great?  That's what every club outside the top five is to a large percentage of people who watch football worldwide, Jake Johnson.  Any of these clubs getting uppity and wanting to do things like holding onto a good player for more than a season once in a while when he could be making one of the big clubs even more omgawesome is being a spoilsport to these people.  And that's why stuff like the Liverpool plan or Man City's grotesque display of wealth comes about, because to a certain breed of football fan, that is what football is all about.  We might think it'll ruin the league but for many people it's giving them exactly what they want.

 

What a top top post that is Brilliantly put. In my personal experience Liverpool fans are the worst at the syndrome you touch on above. They are delusional far far beyond help, which is the reason I want to see that crackhouse of a football club fail so miserably and rot away for good. Getting one over these self aggrandizing cunts always felt sweeter than any other win, especially in the latter years.

[gazza ladra]

I'm not sure that the Liverpool owners are looking to La Liga as a model so much as they are drawing on what they know--- Major League Baseball. 

 

Baseball is a fucking mess. The rich clubs are incredibly wealthy. The Red Sox and Yankees,for example, cannot make enough money from TV while small market clubs cannot complete in any real sense. Baseball jumped the shark a decade or so ago when the Yankees were paying a single player  (A Rod) more money per season than the Pittsburgh Pirates were paying their entire roster.  Pittsburgh is a really small market with very little money coming in from TV. They just cannot compete. I don't think they have had a winning season in more than a decade. 

 

The NFL (American football), on the other hand,  is incredibly well run and competitive, have a salary cap,  and share TV revenues.  If you are going to look at a model from US sport (if you must), that is the place to look. There, a small market team-- like the Pittsburgh Steelers-- can excel.

[Tiresias]

The Red Sox and Yankees,for example, cannot make enough money from TV while small market clubs cannot complete in any real sense. Baseball jumped the shark a decade or so ago when the Yankees were paying a single player  (A Rod) more money per season than the Pittsburgh Pirates were paying their entire roster.

 

Pretty similar to La Liga, iirc Levante's entire wage bill was less than Messi's by some distance

[Dave]

The Red Sox and Yankees,for example, cannot make enough money from TV while small market clubs cannot complete in any real sense. Baseball jumped the shark a decade or so ago when the Yankees were paying a single player  (A Rod) more money per season than the Pittsburgh Pirates were paying their entire roster.

 

Pretty similar to La Liga, iirc Levante's entire wage bill was less than Messi's by some distance

 

Wonder how Tevez's wages compare to Swansea's wage bill, or Norwich's. Bet it's not far off.

[Neil]

Swansea's wage bill 2010/11 was apparently around £7m. I guess that would've increased a bit now they're in the PL. Maybe £10m now?

 

Wayne Rooney = £200,000 a week (possibly more with bonuses) = over £10m.

 

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

If I were say Mike Ashley or even Dave Whelan I'd be voting in Liverpool's favour for this to happen and then when the fixture lists come out I'd be like, pay me 20m if you want to play against my club on TV, if not, bye bye cameras...

 

In a way, Liverpool are reacting to what is happening at Man City who are now one of the so-called big four, a position Liverpool held for many a season and probably would have continued to remain in and around if Man City were not owned by billionaires. That would be like for example me running a papershop, the only one around me, then all of a sudden another papershop opening up not a few blocks away, but accross the road from me, taking half or more of my income. That level of competition would put the shits up anyone. It is already financially stretching just trying to remain in the top four never mind trying to get there which is even more financially stretching. Not being in that top four having been there is like winning the lottery and losing your winning ticket.

 

I don't blame Liverpool for looking at ways in which to combat not only Man City who are bankrolled, but also at ways to bring the success that their fans crave and demand and the success that will keep their better players. The real culprits are UEFA with thier Champions League format, FAs and even FIFA, in short the ruling bodies and governing bodies of the game.

 

Clubs are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

In a way we as fans are partly to blame to. We want to see big money signings, we want top players, we want the CL, we want trophies. In the modern game you only get that by spending big money sadly and that's because the level of competition has been allowed to gravitate away from an even playing field pardon the pun to extreme polar opposites. For example you get 30m potentially for finishing 4th and likewise for avoiding the drop or gaining promotion.

 

Of course the richest clubs have always out performed the poorer ones but the poorer ones have always been able to bridge the gap by appointing good managers and developing players. Take Forest for example and Derby in the past, bother former League and European Champions, clubs who didn't make as much as say Liverpool or Man Utd. They could compete for talent because wages wasnt such a huge factor and they could keep talent because they didn't really need the money because wages and transfer fees were not astronomical.

 

Factor in TV money now and sponsorship and it really is a game for the big clubs. The little clubs have no chance, no chance of keeping their better younger players, their up and coming manager and even their fans. Live in Bolton? Follow Man Utd.

 

Its fucked up. Wages need to fall and transfer fees need abolished. Emphasis should be placed on developing talent and clubs' own ability to generate its own funs in order to sustain itself. Like clubs used to in the past. UEFA need to abolish the CL format too and return it to league champions only.

 

They for me more than anyone have fucked up leagues in terms of competitiveness by handing out silly money to clubs who effectively fail domestically, fail in so far as winning their league, which has created a mini league within a min league that has fucked up clubs like Villa, Newcastle, Eveton, big clubs with big revenues who could compete with your Arsenals etc. if CL money was removed, meaning a more competitive league from 10th upwards. Instead of 2 clubs challenging for the league, 4, instead of 2 for 4rd and 4th as it is now, 6 or so clubs. This would also benefit the bottom half of the table and the clubs in that tier. Look at the sums the mackems have spent just to become a mid-table established club. Of course poor management and purchases have kept them at that level but even Villa and Stoke, well managed clubs, have spent huge money just to become a mid-table side or to be a top 7 side. Its unsustainable and something will have to give.

 

Football is greedy from top to bottom and is eating itself that's how greedy it is. From TV brokers to advertisers all the way down to the fans.

[ponsaelius]

"The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It's the way I see football, the way I see life" - Bill Shankly.

[Guest BooBoo]

Utterly repugnant football club. Not a single saving grace.

[James]

Here is an idea. Clubs sell the TV rights, for home games getting a great deal and removing the control and money from the Premier League. The away team then receives 50% of the TV money.

 

Theoretically more money for everyone that way, plus is fair and proper.