nakamura wrote:
Many people don't blame Sky for the root of problems in football. A lot of it is down to the greed of the clubs and things like the FA. Premier league clubs are in poor health due to poor ownership, crazy wages, overspending and the like. The FA have poor screening for takeover bids, look at the current situation at Birmingham for example. It also happened several times at Pompy and once at West Ham.
Football clubs should not spend what they cannot afford, Leeds did this over ten years ago when Risdale risked years ahead of gate receipts to fund a team for the CL but it fell apart and we know what happened. Leeds overachieved, wasted a lot of money then went bust, and they deserved it.
There should also have been wage and transfer fund resrictions put upon the sport when it started to boom in the 90s. It works in US football and would again stop clubs getting out of control.
How have the clubs got "greedy" Nakamura? Before the Sky Deal Football was on its benders, and in serious danger of being utterly decimated. in this country. Attendences were shocking generally because of violence, lack of interest and so on and there was a lot less money in the game. Mnny clubs were in danger of going to the wall Aldershot would have been the start of things to come without the original sky deal which was something like 52 million over 37million n( i cant remember the exact figures off the top of my head) other offer on the table and even then the 37 million was a massive deal to help keep things afloat
So who put the money in the game, to allow the millions and millions to be spent? The last Sky deal was nearly 1 billion quid iirc As already mentioned and you have agreed with to some extent with teams banking against income from TV rights to bankroll the clubs. And this nearly completely wiped out the football league when On Digital went tits up and in Scotland when Setanta bit the dust. Without the TV money, there would simply be no football, or at least in the way it is known full stop.
The clubs have been encouraged to spend to attract the best players, to keep the viewing figures high on a cynical level, without them the tv deals wouldnt be worth nearly as much and thus we would be back to the dark ages again relatively quickly. It has been seen on the continent most pertinently in Italy iirc correctly where censored TV deals saw much of the talent move away from Italy, and it hasnt really recovered to a large extent. heck even Juventus one of the largest teams in Europe during the 1990's and before have downsized there home ground, and the squads quality is a far cry from when the league had money as is in general the Italian League.
Football clubs shouldnt spend what they cant afford, though if they dont, they dont get any extra income from an increased TV deal next time because the audience is not around so its a self perpetuating prophecy and that is something that can be laid squarely at sky's door who have been paying way over the odds for footy rights for years, to keep exclusivity and attract new customers and so on. Youve already mentioned Brum, Leeds and Pompey, but then you have Bradford, Swindon, Sheff Utd, Sheffield Wednesday, Southampton, Man City ( before Thaksin and then the Sheikh) Heck even Chelski were completely broke before Roman took over and were only weeks away from adminstration before Bates sold up, and that was even with all the money Matthew Harding had pumped in before his untimely death in a helicopter crash
With regards to wage caps and so on. Jimmy Hill ( yes, that Jimmy Hill) would would be pissed at this as it was he who brokered the minimum wage abolition way back 1961. Wages had already become removed from what people on the street were earning, despite what all the revisionists would like to tell you and were earning on average of £5 pounds higher than that of the average man, a lot in them days. The reason for the abolition was because South American teams and various others around the world were beginning to poach players and without a wage cap like Brit football they could pay the players pretty much what ever they liked. Some of the best players in the UK were going off to play football abroad at that point and to stop the talent drain, there was little option available.
To do it now would be a restriction of trade, and though Platini wants to do it, he has been unable to do so which is why we have got the proposed Fair Play rules coming in, in term this should limit wages, however it didnt under the minimum wage, because teams gave jobs, pubs and whatever to circumvent rules. It isnt goint to be any different this time.
It wasnt the Bosman ruling that created this system it was already in effect and has been exacerbated by the sky deals as mentioned above. Tv scheduling has also seen the dearth of Saturday fixtures, a higher dependence on the TV for survival and a myriad of other things that have taken the game out of the reach of many. QPR are charging £60 for home supporters and more next season, they have previously been charging £40 or more in the Championship which is outrageous.
Yes its an over simplified account but I cant be bothered to write thousands of words on it, been there done that and got the t shirt with regards to the history of football. Essentially though blaming the FA and the clubs owners is the easy way out, and doesnt take a look at the bigger picture. Football has been messed up for sometime and without TV it would fold, even with the new rules in place. We may yet get that anyway as banks and the taxman are more willing to wind up clubs, Its not solving the issue its just prolonging the inevitable
With regards to F1. Exclusivity especially when the sport was supposed to be saving money and make itself more attainable in the days of the early 1990s ane before where you had a number of privateers turn up and hope to race, barring qualifying disasters. Is just going to push things further away and leave it utterly dependent on TV deals to survive. Again it is then in the hands of Sky and Fuji TV if they call it quits, then its game over for the sport and this is completely and utterly the wrong way around to do things.
RMLF wrote:
nakamura wrote:
When are the best games on Pay per view? Football is never on pay per view.
Did you miss the entire
Sky Prem Plus channel which was PPV only which ran for 6 years? PPV football has been and gone in this sense, and is likely to be coming around again. Many of the foriegn leagues are having to stave off breakaways from top clubs wanting to make their games PPV only scuppering any TV deals. If it comes around here, there will be trouble
Pay per view was axed thankfully because it was rubbish and too expensive, there is no PPV now but ESPN instead which is just as bad for the consumer. The main reason that leagues are facing a breakoff is down to the greed of the top clubs around the world and the relevant associates.[/quote]
Dude, PPV telly was ended iirc after an EU ruling meaning that SKY couldnt have the monopoly on the Prem Broadcasting rights.. not just the rubbish figures that wiki says iirc. Sky had to sell off some of their packages the lowest drawing channel/less profitable would be the easiest to offload. AS mentioned above the club by club deals are done out of necessity because clubs get more of their income through TV than they do their gates by and large especially in the Prem, and as such they have to speculate to accumalate and as mentioned this is a vicious circle that has come about because of SKY allowing an already flawed system to pick up and exist and expand on nothing, much like the money markets If one goes they all go
Whilst Bernie thinks he is doing the right thing, you may find that F1 a sport that was already struggling for finance anyway disappears completely or becomes completely unsustainable very quickly inspite of what has been done to make it more affordable.
Even when he has a bad race, he still manages to extend his lead in the championship. One thing of interest...... HE OVERTOOK ALONSO!!!! Yes, Vettel overtook another car - IN A RACE! 
Did not deserve that. 
