Jump to content

Recommended Posts

English presence in the top 10 rose from four teams to five, from six to eight in the top 20, and eight to 14 in the top 30. To put that into context, it means Stoke, Sunderland and Swansea all generated more revenue than storied clubs such as Porto, Lazio, Corinthians and Celtic


Edited to add - we should not be proud of this particularly as we all (or most of us) pay for all of this through the Sky rip off subscriptions. No other country settles for the cost of provision.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> No other country settles for the cost of provision.



Not sure what you mean Mick, can you elaborate please?


I thought the TV money was negotiated as a collective by the PL, and then distributed amongst the clubs dependent on TV showings and final league positions, whereas in Spain it's negotiated club by club, meaning Madrid and Barca get the lion's share regardless, thus maintaining their hegemony.

I'm no fan of all the money sloshing around the game at the moment, but I think one upshot is that the PL seems to have become far more competitive with the so called lesser clubs getting this fairer share of the TV money.

Wasn't there a stat last season (the first year of the new Sky deal), that Cardiff, who were relegated, received more ?? than Man Utd did when we won the PL the season before under the old deal?...

That's right RD - its good that's its shared - but when Stoke, who have never won anything to my knowledge, are generating more income than for example Porto, twice European champions and in the champions league on a regular basis makes you wonder who is paying for all of this Stoke money - someone is paying over the market rate somewhere and guess what it's football fans paying through the nose for TV and tickets.


We stupidly accept it and say how brilliant our league is - but we are just paying into the EPL via Sky etc and the clubs pass that money out to overpaid players.


People crow about best league in the world, but that's just us being suckers. The EPL and Sky are together the most expertly marketed product in the world of football, and we are the customer.

The Italian league which was once considered the best has gone downhill. Seems even Milan sold their team bus to save money. The leagues that have the money usually have the best teams. It was more even in the past where most teams were made up of players from their own country as extra money by going abroad wasn't a lure. Television and the money it generates has changed everything.


In the long term it will have an adverse effect as what would be the young supporters of today and the fans of tomorrow find it too expensive to attend games. Crowds will eventually dwindle at matches and too much football on TV will affect advertising revenue as people get bored watching so much football. Half full stadiums don't look good on tele and it will become less attractive to the TV companies as less people watch. We may eventually get back to the stage where players are paid a less than stupid wage and less players go abroad.

The Amex stadium is a 10 minute drive away from me but I couldn?t get tickets


Game was on BT sport so had to watch it in the pub


Couldn?t get in to any pubs in Lewes until gone 3pm ? home and away supporters were out in force and a cracking atmosphere around town


Had to do my old ?watching Arsenal in an away pub? routine from my East Ham days (supporters were friendly ? I just didn?t want to antagonise)


I like Hughton a lot and wanted us to win, but not to inflict reputational damage on him ? so was well pleased by the end of the day

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Morally they should, but we don't actually vote for parties in our electoral system. We vote for a parliamentary (or council) representative. That candidates group together under party unbrellas is irrelevant. We have a 'representative' democracy, not a party political one (if that makes sense). That's where I am on things at the moment. Reform are knocking on the door of the BNP, and using wedge issues to bait emotional rage. The Greens are knocking on the door of the hard left, sweeping up the Corbynista idealists. But it's worth saying that both are only ascending because of the failures of the two main parties and the successive governments they have led. Large parts of the country have been left in economic decline for decades, while city fat cats became uber wealthy. Young people have been screwed over by student loans. Housing is 40 years of commoditisation, removing affordabilty beyond the reach of too many. Decently paid, secure jobs, seem to be a thing of the past. Which of the main parties can people turn to, to fix any of these things, when the main parties are the reason for the mess that has been allowed to evolve? Reform certainly aren't the answer to those things. The Greens may aspire to do something meaningful about some of them, but where will they find the money to pay for it? None of it's easy.
    • Yes, but the context is important and the reason.
    • That messes up Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - democracy being based on citizenship not literacy. There's intentionally no one language that campaign materials have to be in. 
    • TBH if people don't see what is sectarian in the materials linked to above when they read about them, then I don't think me going on about it will help. They speak for themselves.  I don't know how the Greens can justify promising to be a strong voice for one particular religion. Will that pledge hold when it comes to campaigning in East Dulwich (which is majority atheist)? https://censusdata.uk/e02000836-east-dulwich/ts030-religion
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...