Still Not Worthy Of A Thread

[Matt]

The extra £2bn+ equates to £700m each year

 

Aggregate attendances in the PL are just under 14m per season

 

So as of today, clubs will (on average) pick up an extra £50 from the TV deal for every attendee from this deal alone

 

Decent gates used to be a strength of NUFC, but it's utterly irrelevant now, getting 5,000 through the door would barely make a difference.

 

 

[BlueStar]

The more we all get, the worse it is for us because at least some of our rivals are going to invest it in their squad.

[Foluwashola]

English football could do with imploding and starting again. As much as teams like us are hamstrung by the Mike Ashleys of this world, the whole charade is just a mass wanking off of Manchester reds et al. Fuck it.

[Interpolic]

It's a shame the talk of a European Super League died down, was mad keen on that the last time it was being discussed.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

My only real experience of a Friday night game was Cardiff back in the Championship.

 

5-1 wasnt it? Took wor lasses uncle from London to it, his first ever footy game, 60 odd years old, he loved it and now keeps asking me to take him to another game... urgh no

 

Aye. Battered them. Their fans just got p*ssed en-masse beforehand and started chucking a few coins and lighters down as the goals went in. Acted like absolute arseholes around the town afterwards.

 

Routledge and Fitz Hall Debutants?

[TaylorJ_01]

I don't like this any more. I can't associate with anything about English football. It's completely fucked and I don't care.

[Taylor Swift]

the true winners in all this, the parasitic agents

 

Them, the players and some club owners. Everybody else loses out. People should just end their Sky subscriptions and turn to illegal streams in their droves in disgust.

What's wrong with people being rewarded for entertaining others?

players fine, some owners less good agents fuck those parasites and everything they stand for

Agents are the only ones making sure players get their fair share. Without agents, do you think owners would pay as much as they do today?

 

It's why most players love their agents.

[ponsaelius]

Disagree. Really not sure that agents need to exist. They're just another example of one of these middle-man jobs where somebody is making a lot of money despite not really creating anything of value themselves; e.g. ticket touts or buy-to-let lenders. There is also an obvious and inherent conflict of interest at play in that a large amount of the time they're not getting the best deal for the player but getting the best deal for themselves, prioritising the immediate short term. Hence why you see numerous players making bad moves to a big club's academy or to some footballing backwater that doesn't benefit their career or their earnings in the long run but makes the agent some cash in the short term. I mean, maybe they do push the wages up for players across the board but I'm pretty convinced they're simply performing a role that the player or a family member could quite easily do themself. Players have all the power now regardless of whether they have agents or not; Bosman saw to that.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Disagree. Really not sure that agents need to exist. They're just another example of one of these middle-man jobs where somebody is making a lot of money despite not really creating anything of value themselves; e.g. ticket touts or buy-to-let lenders. There is also an obvious and inherent conflict of interest at play in that a large amount of the time they're not getting the best deal for the player but getting the best deal for themselves, prioritising the immediate short term. Hence why you see numerous players making bad moves to a big club's academy or to some footballing backwater that doesn't benefit their career or their earnings in the long run but makes the agent some cash in the short term. I mean, maybe they do push the wages up for players across the board but I'm pretty convinced they're simply performing a role that the player or a family member could quite easily do themself. Players have all the power now regardless of whether they have agents or not; Bosman saw to that.

Like all intermediaries, agents perform tasks that the players/clients do not have the knowledge, time, or preparation for. The vast majority of players have no interest in handling the business the agents does for them and most are not capable anyway. It is unlikely that a negotiation between highly trained and profit-oriented club management and a player with no experience in the matter will go well. Agents are like banks, they are essential in the current system, but they need to be more closely regulated in their behaviour and duly punished for nefarious dealings because currently they have too much power and too much scope for moral hazard (i.e. the expensive, yet risky moves you covered). Football and sport in general would benefit from better oversight and organisation of agents.

[Yorkie]

"I sit here before you making no secret of the fact that that money will continue to be invested by the clubs in terms of playing talent; to continue to to put on the best show they possibly can.

 

The money will also be invested in stadia. Clubs have new stadia plans and improvement plans.

 

The clubs will continue to invest in youth development. They will continue to invest in good causes."

 

 

I wonder if, on the hopeful assumption Scudamore genuinely gave a shit about anything that hints at being related to the football itself, he would have anything to say about the fact we won't do any of the above things.

[Taylor Swift]

Disagree. Really not sure that agents need to exist. They're just another example of one of these middle-man jobs where somebody is making a lot of money despite not really creating anything of value themselves; e.g. ticket touts or buy-to-let lenders. There is also an obvious and inherent conflict of interest at play in that a large amount of the time they're not getting the best deal for the player but getting the best deal for themselves, prioritising the immediate short term. Hence why you see numerous players making bad moves to a big club's academy or to some footballing backwater that doesn't benefit their career or their earnings in the long run but makes the agent some cash in the short term. I mean, maybe they do push the wages up for players across the board but I'm pretty convinced they're simply performing a role that the player or a family member could quite easily do themself. Players have all the power now regardless of whether they have agents or not; Bosman saw to that.

They earn their money. Of course, sometimes their advice doesn't pay off, but most of the time the players are still well rewarded financially. Players aren't like fans, most of them don't have a dog in this fight. They look after themselves and fair play to them. I imagine the average worker doesn't really care about their company. They care about it doing well when they're there, but if they leave? It's just another company, like the millions out there. The players feel the same way, IMO.

 

Agents also handle stuff like contracts and negotiations which most players don't have a clue how to do. They also have contacts in the game that family members of players don't. Look at someone like Mendes who will move players to clubs where he's close to the owners. This is obviously to the benefit of the players because Mendes' influence allows him to get players higher wages.

 

I don't understand the hate for agents. They're the best thing going for players. I don't see agents that act against their client's best interests regularly and without them, more of the profit in football would go to owners. I don't see why the system should be like that that.

 

Anyway, the craziest thing about this deal is that it's a domestic deal. I don't understand why people in England pay so much to watch football on TV and why no other country is willing to pay the same? The difference is becoming an order of magnitude. Why do Dutch people don't want to pay to watch Ajax on TV? Why are they willing to pay so little?

 

We're not even talking about foreign money. We're simply talking domestic, which is crazy.

[Taylor Swift]

Agents also exist in every other sport and fans almost always don't like that but they're still the best thing for the players. Some agents even go so far as to handle mortgages and credit cards for players, that's the kind of thorough service they offer.

[themanupstairs]

Honestly don't know how they're turning a profit on that outlay

 

Hope they go bust.

 

Pretty obvious isn't it? The betting man. People the world over are watching matches for free, not paying a penny in subscriptions. It's the gambling that's keeping it all going the way it is. And it's going to get worse.

[Flip]

Honestly don't know how they're turning a profit on that outlay

 

Hope they go bust.

 

Pretty obvious isn't it? The betting man. People the world over are watching matches for free, not paying a penny in subscriptions. It's the gambling that's keeping it all going the way it is. And it's going to get worse.

 

Are there many countries where subscription to watch PL football is free?

[themanupstairs]

Honestly don't know how they're turning a profit on that outlay

 

Hope they go bust.

 

Pretty obvious isn't it? The betting man. People the world over are watching matches for free, not paying a penny in subscriptions. It's the gambling that's keeping it all going the way it is. And it's going to get worse.

 

Are there many countries where subscription to watch PL football is free?

 

I meant watching the games at pubs, and watching online.

[Flip]

Honestly don't know how they're turning a profit on that outlay

 

Hope they go bust.

 

Pretty obvious isn't it? The betting man. People the world over are watching matches for free, not paying a penny in subscriptions. It's the gambling that's keeping it all going the way it is. And it's going to get worse.

 

Are there many countries where subscription to watch PL football is free?

 

I meant watching the games at pubs, and watching online.

 

 

Pubs still probably pay a larger fee for subscription unless they only have one tv right? As for watching online it's illegal so I think with this amount of fee they might come harder on illegal streaming. We'll see. It's a crazy fee, but at the same time it's supply and demand. The attraction of PL has really grown a lot in South and Central America over the past few years and even in the US I imagine more people watch it than ever. Doubt betting has that big of an impact on the fee tbh. Obviously you might be right, but I think with national channels all over the world willing to pay for the rights to show them in their own countries I'm not sure the fee is impossible to turn-over based on selling parts of its rights.

 

Anyways, CRAZY MONEY nonetheless

[Guest antz1uk]

Honestly don't know how they're turning a profit on that outlay

 

Hope they go bust.

 

Pretty obvious isn't it? The betting man. People the world over are watching matches for free, not paying a penny in subscriptions. It's the gambling that's keeping it all going the way it is. And it's going to get worse.

 

Are there many countries where subscription to watch PL football is free?

 

I meant watching the games at pubs, and watching online.

 

 

Pubs still probably pay a larger fee for subscription unless they only have one tv right? As for watching online it's illegal so I think with this amount of fee they might come harder on illegal streaming. We'll see. It's a crazy fee, but at the same time it's supply and demand. The attraction of PL has really grown a lot in South and Central America over the past few years and even in the US I imagine more people watch it than ever. Doubt betting has that big of an impact on the fee tbh. Obviously you might be right, but I think with national channels all over the world willing to pay for the rights to show them in their own countries I'm not sure the fee is impossible to turn-over based on selling parts of its rights.

 

Anyways, CRAZY MONEY nonetheless

 

I'm not sure if you're talking at home here or overseas, but it was only a couple of year ago i had a small 'local' pub in a small town, it ticked over, not massive turnover, but was ok for just me, Sky commercial subs are based upon your rates, however luckily for me i got a 50% small business rates relief (government thing to help small businesses) anyway, if i wanted sky it would have cost me £1300 per month (more than 4 x business rates), that was 3yr ago, so before the current hike in football money, nevermind this next one, let's just say that those subs they wanted from me were around a tenth of my turnover, that's before rent, rates, staff, stock, utilities... it was an absolute impossible figure for me to afford

[TaylorJ_01]

They may as well make all tickets £10. Pack out every stadium so it looks good for their beloved TV games. Plus, relatively no money is being made from fans at the game now.

[themanupstairs]

Honestly don't know how they're turning a profit on that outlay

 

Hope they go bust.

 

Pretty obvious isn't it? The betting man. People the world over are watching matches for free, not paying a penny in subscriptions. It's the gambling that's keeping it all going the way it is. And it's going to get worse.

 

Are there many countries where subscription to watch PL football is free?

 

I meant watching the games at pubs, and watching online.

 

 

Pubs still probably pay a larger fee for subscription unless they only have one tv right? As for watching online it's illegal so I think with this amount of fee they might come harder on illegal streaming. We'll see. It's a crazy fee, but at the same time it's supply and demand. The attraction of PL has really grown a lot in South and Central America over the past few years and even in the US I imagine more people watch it than ever. Doubt betting has that big of an impact on the fee tbh. Obviously you might be right, but I think with national channels all over the world willing to pay for the rights to show them in their own countries I'm not sure the fee is impossible to turn-over based on selling parts of its rights.

 

Anyways, CRAZY MONEY nonetheless

 

I reckon there's a lot of money on the gambling side of things. Not sure how SkyBet is doing, but it's the only thing I can think of that makes business sense. I also wouldn't be surprised if big broadcasters own gambling sites.

 

There are a myriad of ways to by-pass crackdowns on illegal streaming. No matter how hard they try to prevent illegal streams and broadcasts, technology today will find a way.

 

Either way, football is well and truly fucked, the PL in particular. The major cash cow bubble will burst somehow. It is simply unsustainable.

[Guest antz1uk]

just checked some stats, currently there's around 48000 pubs in the UK with a third having sky, average is £15k subscription a year, that's some chunk of wedge @ £237mill

 

although that doesn't seem to stack up against how much they've just paid for the next set of rights

[Guest n4e]

[Nobody]

Honestly don't know how they're turning a profit on that outlay

 

Hope they go bust.

 

Pretty obvious isn't it? The betting man. People the world over are watching matches for free, not paying a penny in subscriptions. It's the gambling that's keeping it all going the way it is. And it's going to get worse.

 

Are there many countries where subscription to watch PL football is free?

 

I meant watching the games at pubs, and watching online.

 

 

Pubs still probably pay a larger fee for subscription unless they only have one tv right? As for watching online it's illegal so I think with this amount of fee they might come harder on illegal streaming. We'll see. It's a crazy fee, but at the same time it's supply and demand. The attraction of PL has really grown a lot in South and Central America over the past few years and even in the US I imagine more people watch it than ever. Doubt betting has that big of an impact on the fee tbh. Obviously you might be right, but I think with national channels all over the world willing to pay for the rights to show them in their own countries I'm not sure the fee is impossible to turn-over based on selling parts of its rights.

 

Anyways, CRAZY MONEY nonetheless

 

I'm not sure if you're talking at home here or overseas, but it was only a couple of year ago i had a small 'local' pub in a small town, it ticked over, not massive turnover, but was ok for just me, Sky commercial subs are based upon your rates, however luckily for me i got a 50% small business rates relief (government thing to help small businesses) anyway, if i wanted sky it would have cost me £1300 per month (more than 4 x business rates), that was 3yr ago, so before the current hike in football money, nevermind this next one, let's just say that those subs they wanted from me were around a tenth of my turnover, that's before rent, rates, staff, stock, utilities... it was an absolute impossible figure for me to afford

It's the same over here in Sweden. Don't know the exact amounts that the different companies want for us to be able to show the games, but rest assured that it's a hell of a lot more than a normal subscription.

[Disco]

For context:

 

Accrington Stanley ‏@ASFCofficial  2h2 hours ago

The Prem Lge has a new £5bn TV deal. £10m per match. 1 game would pay our annual wage bill for the next 20 years.

[ponsaelius]

Disagree. Really not sure that agents need to exist. They're just another example of one of these middle-man jobs where somebody is making a lot of money despite not really creating anything of value themselves; e.g. ticket touts or buy-to-let lenders. There is also an obvious and inherent conflict of interest at play in that a large amount of the time they're not getting the best deal for the player but getting the best deal for themselves, prioritising the immediate short term. Hence why you see numerous players making bad moves to a big club's academy or to some footballing backwater that doesn't benefit their career or their earnings in the long run but makes the agent some cash in the short term. I mean, maybe they do push the wages up for players across the board but I'm pretty convinced they're simply performing a role that the player or a family member could quite easily do themself. Players have all the power now regardless of whether they have agents or not; Bosman saw to that.

They earn their money. Of course, sometimes their advice doesn't pay off, but most of the time the players are still well rewarded financially. Players aren't like fans, most of them don't have a dog in this fight. They look after themselves and fair play to them. I imagine the average worker doesn't really care about their company. They care about it doing well when they're there, but if they leave? It's just another company, like the millions out there. The players feel the same way, IMO.

 

Agents also handle stuff like contracts and negotiations which most players don't have a clue how to do. They also have contacts in the game that family members of players don't. Look at someone like Mendes who will move players to clubs where he's close to the owners. This is obviously to the benefit of the players because Mendes' influence allows him to get players higher wages.

 

I don't understand the hate for agents. They're the best thing going for players. I don't see agents that act against their client's best interests regularly and without them, more of the profit in football would go to owners. I don't see why the system should be like that that.

 

Anyway, the craziest thing about this deal is that it's a domestic deal. I don't understand why people in England pay so much to watch football on TV and why no other country is willing to pay the same? The difference is becoming an order of magnitude. Why do Dutch people don't want to pay to watch Ajax on TV? Why are they willing to pay so little?

 

We're not even talking about foreign money. We're simply talking domestic, which is crazy.

 

Pip, you're a staunch free market neoliberal, I'm unsurprised you support the role people like agents who are essentially a parasite making money for not really doing, creating or having any discernible talent themselves. Like I said, there's numerous people fulfilling jobs like this now who are making money out of nothing which apparently makes them commendable.

 

You mention Mendes. Is he good? Is he good for footballers? He doesn't seem to have done much for Falcao's career or Hulk's career in recent years. Unless all that really matters is making 300k a week instead of 200k. I'm sure looking at the fees and wages involved for the players he's made himself a lot of dodgy Russian money in the process though. And this guy is supposed to be an example of a top agent. I dread to think about all the low end agents pushing their clients between various clubs to get their slice.

[joeyt]

 

Might be Ron Gaggs