Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Proposed changes to the Premier league

Status
Not open for further replies.
number4. said:
Yes, but in all seriousness, no one can argue they will equally. My gut feeling is this will be the beginning of discussion about a more structure PPV / PPC (Club) model, where the club with be merited based on demand generated.
Click to expand...

Well of course they can. How much more revenue are Spurs or City generating Villa or Newcastle?

It's a fallacy. The league is the USP. You throw United or Liverpool on in the FA Cup, or throw West Ham V Villa on in the PL last season and it's easy to see which one gets more views. The PL is the key. If they were the big revenue drivers, why are viewerships for the CL, where they exclusively play each other dropping?

It's also worth stating, they already take up a huge and disproportionate amount of the revenue already. So it's not like they aren't being rewarded. You could actually argue they are perhaps too well rewarded.
 
What would happen if West ham and Southampton were relegated? Would they still be able to vote even though they aren't in the league?
 
catcherintherye said:
West Ham have. I tend to read it that the lack of clubs supporting it looks a bit odder. I mean the FA may throw it out.

The problem is, it legitmises myths like they bring in the revenue and the league would struggle without them, and lower league teams are profilgate, inequality is important and good etc.
Click to expand...

For context, I need to be clear that I would not be in favour of a change in TV rights distribution & personally, I believe the league should be as close to a meritocracy as is possible within the remits of stadium revenue, owner investment and TV rights, which ultimately act as the leveler of the playing feed.

But in terms of legitimising Myths; i'm just not buying into that. To suggest Burnley generate as much Global viewing of the Premier league as Man United is simply not true. At their peak (2012 figures), 70% of global viewing of PL matches were Man United & to use an inappropriate analogy, if I was a stripper in a strip club responsible for 70% of the cash collected, I would be fairly pissed off if it was divided equally between the 20 dancers.

That said, there is an argument that the other 19 dancers maintain the crowd while I'm off doing lapdances ;-)
 

It's farcical that they think they should have more of a vote than any other team. It's basically bribery; "Hey, if you let is have all the power, we will trickle down one of our annual transfer budgets to the lower leagues". Wow thanks Top 6 that's so kind.
 
number4. said:
For context, I need to be clear that I would not be in favour of a change in TV rights distribution & personally, I believe the league should be as close to a meritocracy as is possible within the remits of stadium revenue, owner investment and TV rights, which ultimately act as the leveler of the playing feed.

But in terms of legitimising Myths; i'm just not buying into that. To suggest Burnley generate as much Global viewing of the Premier league as Man United is simply not true. At their peak (2012 figures), 70% of global viewing of PL matches were Man United & to use an inappropriate analogy, if I was a stripper in a strip club responsible for 70% of the cash collected, I would be fairly pissed off if it was divided equally between the 20 dancers.

That said, there is an argument that the other 19 dancers maintain the crowd while I'm off doing lapdances ;-)
Click to expand...

The strip club analogy doesn't work though. People tune in to watch some teams, defeat other teams, You need both.

I mean Everton hold the record viewers for a game, yet we are well below the TV payments for 5 of the top 6 who don't hold that record. How is it fairness we would be given less money in relation to them?

There is inequality already baked in. The product generates the money. At different moments different teams will be at the top and get more viewers, which will be changeable, but crucially it's the product in it's entirity that generates the income. We need to shatter the myth people tune in to watch Liverpool, or United. They tune in to watch the Premier League.
 

catcherintherye said:
The strip club analogy doesn't work though. People tune in to watch some teams, defeat other teams, You need both.

I mean Everton hold the record viewers for a game, yet we are well below the TV payments for 5 of the top 6 who don't hold that record. How is it fairness we would be given less money in relation to them?

There is inequality already baked in. The product generates the money. At different moments different teams will be at the top and get more viewers, which will be changeable, but crucially it's the product in it's entirity that generates the income. We need to shatter the myth people tune in to watch Liverpool, or United. They tune in to watch the Premier League.
Click to expand...

So are you suggesting the Man U v Sheffield United, Man U V Burnley and Burnley v Sheffield United, would all generate similar global levels of viewing.

Looking at 2019/20 Barb data Liverpool & Man United were averaging well over two times the viewers over the course of the season, when compared with West Ham, Palace, Burnley and Brighton. I agree to an extent with your arguement that it's the product that generates the money, but the BARB numbers don't lie

Average viewers per game (UK only)

• Liverpool – 1,662,801
• Manchester United – 1,520,948
• Tottenham Hotspur – 1,286,847
• Chelsea – 1,143,175
• Manchester City – 1,136,054
• Arsenal – 1,117,644
• Wolverhampton Wanderers – 1,108,265
• Everton – 1,064,044
• Norwich City – 987,411
• Newcastle United – 955,915
• Sheffield United – 944,188
• Leicester City – 869,820
• Aston Villa – 865,251
• Watford – 814,270
• Southampton – 760,833
• Brighton & Hove Albion – 739,313
• Burnley – 703,005
• Crystal Palace – 658,897
• West Ham United – 636,296
• Bournemouth – 625,427
 
bluelife said:
I do hope I am with the majority in thinking that even if this did somehow benefit Everton - I'd still hate it...
Click to expand...

In a way it would, we have already got the billionaire owner. We would be pulling up the drawbridge to cement that position. But it's a crap idea. I want more competition not less, I'm all for salary caps to spread the best players around the league.

number4. said:
To suggest Burnley generate as much Global viewing of the Premier league as Man United is simply not true. At their peak (2012 figures), 70% of global viewing of PL matches were Man United & to use an inappropriate analogy, if I was a stripper in a strip club responsible for 70% of the cash collected, I would be fairly pissed off if it was divided equally between the 20 dancers.
Click to expand...

How many watch utd now though? They will have jumped to city. Basically they just want to watch PL football and whoever is winning they will watch.
 
The binman chronicles said:
In a way it would, we have already got the billionaire owner. We would be pulling up the drawbridge to cement that position. But it's a crap idea. I want more competition not less, I'm all for salary caps to spread the best players around the league.



How many watch utd now though? They will have jumped to city. Basically they just want to watch PL football and whoever is winning they will watch.
Click to expand...

figures posted above - UK only so dont take into account the international aspect which would be even starker I suspect
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top