Football Governance

[bobloblaw]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I don’t care about anything except the live games. Maybe £20 a month, or £200 a season?

MLB TV is something like $120 for the whole season, 160 games for every team including watching them all back on demand, highlights and abridged games. But local games are blacked out. 

Biggest reason I haven't bought it.  I'm a red sox fan, and every game against the cubs, white sox, brewers, twins, royals, and cards are blacked out for my region, even though we only get the white sox games locally.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

5 minutes ago, bobloblaw said:

Since I don't live over there, how much would it cost a local NUFC fan to watch every game live?

I mean I can watch every Packers game live on Hulu, without paying anything extra.

You mean to attend the stadium? £40-£60 a game (ish) in Newcastle, that’s probably one of the cheaper clubs  Spurs tickets run to £100+  

Before Covid there was no way to watch all the games live, the 3pm Saturday games aren’t allowed on TV.

To watch every PL game that was on you’d need a fairly premium Sky TV package plus additional BT Sport. I’ve never had it, but maybe £80+ per month? But that wouldn’t get you all of your own team’s games.

Edit: Oh, and £7.99 for Amazon Prime as they have games now. 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by AyeDubbleYoo

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, bobloblaw said:

Biggest reason I haven't bought it.  I'm a red sox fan, and every game against the cubs, white sox, brewers, twins, royals, and cards are blacked out for my region, even though we only get the white sox games locally.

Also there are excellent illegal streaming sites for MLB. Usually I watch it illegally until they start to discount the official service, then I buy it for around $50 late in the season. 

[Cronky]

3 hours ago, astraguy said:

Wish Newcastles loyal fanbase would give this a listen in regards to stop going to games if you want real change within the club

Barnes is falling into the classic trap of using analogies as a substitute for analysis. He draws a comparison with Sky in 1992, and implies there's no difference. The very important difference is that the Premiership was not created as a perpetual closed shop. There were elements of unfairness about it, of course, but the outrage that was generated by the ESL is rooted in the fact that it was completely anti-competitive in its concept. 

Barnes goes on about the shortcomings of the game in other areas, as though somehow that puts the big six on the same moral footing as everyone else. Nobody's perfect, we all look after Number 1, but there are degrees of hypocrisy, selfishness and dishonesty which are important. The way these clubs have the nerve to still go on about how they were trying to set the game's finances on a secure footing is quite nauseating. 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Cronky

[bobloblaw]

2 minutes ago, HTT II said:

Producing games isn’t easy at all, and very costly, if it was, club’s would have done this a long time ago. Generating revenue is easy if you have a guaranteed audience, but the profitability from that revenue isn’t as big as you’d imagine it to be. If it was, Sky would have ditched the rest of their programming and concentrated solely on sport, and especially football.

It is pretty easy, the reason they haven't is that they (I assume) don't control their broadcast rights for PL games.  NESN and YES are huge money makers for the red sox and yankees, and they were allowed to create those channels because of the way MLB broadcast rights were handled.

[Guest HTT II]

Just now, bobloblaw said:

It is pretty easy, the reason they haven't is that they (I assume) don't control their broadcast rights for PL games.  NESN and YES are huge money makers for the red sox and yankees, and they were allowed to create those channels because of the way MLB broadcast rights were handled.

OK, I’ll rephrase, it’s not easy to just do because of the costs involved. To televise just one game live, you’re looking at a production team of over 100, that’s not counting the infrastructure in camera technology, the editing suite (usually a lorry or a bus), satellites, sound, and so on. 

[bobloblaw]

4 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

You mean to attend the stadium? £40-£60 a game (ish) in Newcastle, that’s probably one of the cheaper clubs  Spurs tickets run to £100+  

Before Covid there was no way to watch all the games live, the 3pm Saturday games aren’t allowed on TV.

To watch every PL game that was on you’d need a fairly premium Sky TV package plus additional BT Sport. I’ve never had it, but maybe £80+ per month? But that wouldn’t get you all of your own team’s games.

Edit: Oh, and £7.99 for Amazon Prime as they have games now. 

Meant on tv, and holy shit at the bolded.  You guys are getting taken for a ride.

[Miggys First Goal]

1 minute ago, bobloblaw said:

Meant on tv, and holy shit at the bolded.  You guys are getting taken for a ride.

You ain't wrong.

[Guest HTT II]

1 minute ago, bobloblaw said:

Meant on tv, and holy shit at the bolded.  You guys are getting taken for a ride.

We are indeed. I do wonder though, is it cheaper for the US TV companies because there is a bigger audience market and therefore the more that subscribe the costs can be lowered? 

[bobloblaw]

1 minute ago, HTT II said:

OK, I’ll rephrase, it’s not easy to just do because of the costs involved. To televise just one game live, you’re looking at a production team of over 100, that’s not counting the infrastructure in camera technology, the editing suite (usually a lorry or a bus), satellites, sound, and so on. 

Sure but it is easily worth it for the bigger clubs if they get to recoup all the revenue from it.  There are colleges in the US with their own networks (Texas).

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, bobloblaw said:

Meant on tv, and holy shit at the bolded.  You guys are getting taken for a ride.

I’m probably underestimating it since I’d never get a package.

But just the concept of not being able to watch your own team is a bit crazy when it’s being broadcast everywhere across the world. I’m biased because I live in London so can’t attend many home games anyway. 

[Guest HTT II]

Just now, bobloblaw said:

Sure but it is easily worth it for the bigger clubs if they get to recoup all the revenue from it.  There are colleges in the US with their own networks (Texas).

And massive stadiums for college football. The sporting structure ironically in the USA given the last few days, is something our own sport (including every sport) could do well to emulate and look towards adopting in many of the areas that exist in US sport, at pro and non pro level, junior and senior. Mind it’s easier when there is no competition...

[bobloblaw]

2 minutes ago, HTT II said:

We are indeed. I do wonder though, is it cheaper for the US TV companies because there is a bigger audience market and therefore the more that subscribe the costs can be lowered? 

Probably that, and more ad revenue.  Companies will pay more to advertise here.  Part of the reason the tampa bay rays are worth 3x as much as NUFC.

Something that is getting lost in all of this is that selling targeted ads on a streaming service are worth more than generic ads on a larger broadcast.  Also, the teams would be able to monetize the data they get from a team owned streaming service.  That is where the big money would come.

[Scotty66]

This article from Sky news was in October 2020. It has it absolutely bang on about the details of the super league. 

Except for one thing... It says FIFA are involved in discussions. Hmmm ?

https://news.sky.com/story/top-english-clubs-in-bombshell-talks-to-join-european-premier-league-12109175

[Stifler]

15 minutes ago, HTT II said:

We are indeed. I do wonder though, is it cheaper for the US TV companies because there is a bigger audience market and therefore the more that subscribe the costs can be lowered? 

In the USA and Canada sports bars are common. Here in the U.K. they are not as much, because it costs a lot to show sports, with football in particular having TV blackouts. A sports bar over there will show multiple sports at once, and going to one is a common way of socialising.

Here in the U.K. to show the likes of Sky Sports costs fortunes, often thousands of pounds a month, as we have already established, the majority of our games are blacked out on TV. We are also mostly a 1 sport nation. Football is bar far our number 1 sport. It is unusual for someone to follow a different sport as their number 1 sport, and more unusual for people to follow multiple sports. In the USA/Canada it is common for to follow multiple sports and to do so almost simultaneously. Someone in here said that one of the reasons why football is growing in popularity in the USA/Canada is because European games are shown early during the day, before their home sports are.

[bobloblaw]

I have to come back to this.  If someone told Bills fans they had to spend $100 a month to watch their local team, Roger Goodell would be getting powerbombed through a folding table.

[Decky]

Is it unusual here to follow multiple sports? I wouldn't say it is like. Plenty of people follow football, rugby, golf, racing, cricket etc. 

[bobloblaw]

5 minutes ago, Stifler said:

In the USA and Canada sports bars are common. Here in the U.K. they are not as much, because it costs a lot to show sports, with football in particular having TV blackouts. A sports bar over there will show multiple sports at once, and going to one is a common way of socialising.

Here in the U.K. to show the likes of Sky Sports costs fortunes, often thousands of pounds a month, as we have already established, the majority of our games are blacked out on TV. We are also mostly a 1 sport nation. Football is bar far our number 1 sport. It is unusual for someone to follow a different sport as their number 1 sport, and more unusual for people to follow multiple sports. In the USA/Canada it is common for to follow multiple sports and to do so almost simultaneously. Someone in here said that one of the reasons why football is growing in popularity in the USA/Canada is because European games are shown early during the day, before their home sports are.

 

This reads like someone quoted a terrible vacation guide book.

Edit: this might be partially true, with games being shown in the AM before college football (saturday) and NFL (sunday) games.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by bobloblaw

[Fantail Breeze]

2 hours ago, huss9 said:

havent really looked into the detail of the proposed (or have they been agreed?) changes to the  uefa champions league. i mean coefficiants etc.

but would it mean the likes of liverpool , man city, manu would qualify even if they finished 6/7th but the "lesser teams" would need to finish top 4???

if so, its not much better than the ESL is it?

Well it’s an additional CL space, rather than taking it from someone who already had it. So I can sort of live with it.

If they were taking a space from 4th to give it to Man Utd in 14th, it’d be a different matter imo.

Coefficients change too. It’ll only help a team for so long before they fall into the abyss.

[LFEE]

6 hours ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

Link?

 

[LFEE]

 

[Consortium of one]

From The Athletic

The Premier League has asked executives from the ‘big six’ English clubs associated with the Super League to step down from committee positions.

 

The Athletic understands Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, approached executives from Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester City and Liverpool following their involvement in the now-abandoned European Super League.

 

Tottenham Hotspur, the sixth club, are not represented on any of the Premier League committees.

Who has been asked to step down?

Manchester United executive vice chairman Ed Woodward, Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck, Arsenal CEO Vinai Venkatesham, Manchester City CEO Ferran Soriano and Liverpool chairman Tom Werner have all been asked to step down from their positions on Premier League committees.

 

It is believed the Premier League is also looking to remove Woodward and Liverpool executive Tom Werner from its Club Broadcast Advisory Group.

Why has Masters requested this?

This follows yesterday's angry meeting of the 14 Premier League clubs which are not involved in the Super League.

 

They believe these ‘big six’ executives —bar Tottenham who are not represented on any Premier League committees — have acted in bad faith by taking part in sensitive talks and negotiations whilst conspiring behind the other clubs' backs.

 

The other 14 clubs and the Premier League board believe these executives have breached two specific rules, namely B.16 which states that “in all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith" and L9 which says: "Except with the prior written approval of the Board, during the Season a Club shall not enter or play its senior men's first team in any competition other than: the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the FA Cup, the FA Community Shield, the Football League Cup or competitions sanctioned by the County Association of which it is a member."

What does this mean for the 'big six'?

As it stands, these are the only responses from the Premier League to the Super League crisis and they are directed at individuals as opposed to the clubs they represent.

 

Some of the other Premier League clubs would like to go further with more significant sanctions, including punishments for the Super League clubs themselves.

 

At the moment, however, there is no consensus on what they would be or even if they are justified, given the fact the Super League plan collapsed so quickly.

 

Whether these moves to remove key individuals will be the end of it, though, will depend on how quickly the other clubs move on and also how contrite the 'big six' are.

 

It is possible that calls for more serious sanctions may return if the Premier League's auction for TV rights, for example, were to go badly.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Consortium of one

[Disco]

Genuinely angry at the media lot just carrying on like nothing has happened.

(To paraphrase) “Great to see Ryan Masey Mason getting a win and nice guy* Sonny getting a win”

Is it fuck, fuck off you utter fucking bellpieces.

 

*unless he snaps your fucking legs or dives around like an utter fucking cunt before pretending to cry.

[B-more Mag]

1 hour ago, bobloblaw said:

I have to come back to this.  If someone told Bills fans they had to spend $100 a month to watch their local team, Roger Goodell would be getting powerbombed through slightly off target of a folding table.

 

[bobloblaw]

1 minute ago, B-more Mag said:

 

Was trying to be generous