THE CLOCK IS TICKING

[Brauny Blue]

The Bosman ruling IMO curbed transfer fee's . The down side is that the players pocket obscene amounts of money, and they can hold their clubs to ransom if they know that the club is desperate to keep them.

 

[fitz]

no webbo you've got the wrong end of the stick, not bosman. i'm refering to in 99 or 2000 or whenever it was that a case in Italy was filed to do with the selling of players for huge fees being wrong as it was a breach of human rights to be sold, it was by a big club (unsurprisingly) that wanted to exploit their finances at the cost of lesser clubs

 

[webmaster]

no webbo you've got the wrong end of the stick, not bosman. i'm refering to in 99 or 2000 or whenever it was that a case in Italy was filed to do with the selling of players for huge fees being wrong as it was a breach of human rights to be sold, it was by a big club (unsurprisingly) that wanted to exploit their finances at the cost of lesser clubs

Have you got more details about this, I haven't heard anything about it.

Surely if a player doesn't want to move, he doesn't have to - unless there's something in his contract that says he has to. And if that's the case, he shouldn't sign the contract.

 

[fitz]

nope unfortunately, i was just a wee-un at the time. hopefully someone else can remember though and i dont just look like a right mug

 

[gregs_y2k]

One of the big risks for fans is that he could threaten to move the team elsewhere, like he threatened to do so in the NFL unless a new stadium was built for him (but not by him $$$wise). He threatened to move the team out of the state if his demands weren't met.
Although Man Utd do have the biggest ground in the Premiership. He may want to top Barcelona' Neucamp or at least rival them. Which could mean the team could move to a new stadium wherever is the cheapest to build a la MK Dons and leave the fans stranded.
although a ground in Birmingham would be much beneficial for Utd fans, slap bang in the centre of England would clearly cater for all of them.
These are the tactics he employs to make profits, with a 200 million pound debt undertaken also, will you see him refusing a £30 million offer for Ferdidnad (apparently being prepared by Madrid) will be turned down? I think not.

 

[Dickovforengland!]

To webbo's point about TV rights. I can't see the Premier League allowing clubs to launch their own deals. I can see how the top clubs would view it as attractive but there are another 15 chairmen/clubs. So I can't see how it would get through.

Because Glazer will will use the courts to get his own way. He'll justify it by saying the current system is restraint of trade, or something similar.

Once one club is able to break away, the other big clubs will follow and the rest will be left to feed on the leftovers.

I see what you are saying but I cannot see the Premiership allowing it. Man U and other big clubs need the Premiership just as much as it needs them. Unless they join a European Super League, and I think UEFA might have something to say about the value of the Champions League if that occurred, Man U need the Premiership to generate revenue. Conceivably the Premier League could veto any move to restrict TV money to the bigger clubs.

 

[webmaster]

To webbo's point about TV rights. I can't see the Premier League allowing clubs to launch their own deals. I can see how the top clubs would view it as attractive but there are another 15 chairmen/clubs. So I can't see how it would get through.

Because Glazer will will use the courts to get his own way. He'll justify it by saying the current system is restraint of trade, or something similar.

Once one club is able to break away, the other big clubs will follow and the rest will be left to feed on the leftovers.

I see what you are saying but I cannot see the Premiership allowing it.

If the courts rule that the Premiership have to allow it, they'll have to allow it.

 

[Dickovforengland!]

quote]

If the courts rule that the Premiership have to allow it, they'll have to allow it.[/quote]

Thats a big if.

 

[webmaster]

quote]

If the courts rule that the Premiership have to allow it, they'll have to allow it.

Thats a big if.[/quote]

But I think it's inevitable that it's going to happen sooner or later.

 

[Dickovforengland!]

quote]

If the courts rule that the Premiership have to allow it, they'll have to allow it.

Thats a big if.

But I think it's inevitable that it's going to happen sooner or later.[/quote]

Maybe, I think the Premier League clubs could also hire expensive lawyers to argue that in releasing their own TV rights Man Utd could be monopolising the English football TV market. I don't think its a given that is definitely going to happen.

 

[Redditch Fox]

To webbo's point about TV rights. I can't see the Premier League allowing clubs to launch their own deals. I can see how the top clubs would view it as attractive but there are another 15 chairmen/clubs. So I can't see how it would get through.

Because Glazer will will use the courts to get his own way. He'll justify it by saying the current system is restraint of trade, or something similar.

Once one club is able to break away, the other big clubs will follow and the rest will be left to feed on the leftovers.

You are spot on and it's inevitable.

Everyone knows that fixtures like Blackburn v Charlton have no currency with the wider viewing audience. The big boys of the premiership will be playing the likes of Barca at the weekends and not Fulham within a very few years.

Its the inevitable and logical progress of economically driven sport and as you suggest elsewhere, European legislation against restraint of trade.

Its obvious from the distribution of points in this year's Premiership table that only 3 teams are seriously competetive and then you have say: Liverpool, Newcastle and Spurs who would have aspirations to progress .

This is why Leicester are right to cut costs - but don't let's kid ourselves that we are likely to be strengthening the squad - we are cost cutting - end of story.

 

[Dickovforengland!]

This is all pure conjecture but...

You can't have a European Super League without domestic league competitions with the big clubs in as well, unless the TV money makes up for the lost revenue on the difference in fixtures multiplied by seat sales at 60000+ seater grounds it wouldn't make sense for clubs to do it.

The PL will not just sit back and let Man U b8gger off with sole ownership of their TV rights without some equally well paid lawyers arguing their case.

 

[Steven]

This is all pure conjecture but...

You can't have a European Super League without domestic league competitions with the big clubs in as well, unless the TV money makes up for the lost revenue on the difference in fixtures multiplied by seat sales at 60000+ seater grounds it wouldn't make sense for clubs to do it.

The PL will not just sit back and let Man U b8gger off with sole ownership of their TV rights without some equally well paid lawyers arguing their case.

The current TV deal breaches EU competition law but no-one chooses to "prosecute" the matter. ;-) :mrgreen:

 

[Redditch Fox]

This is all pure conjecture but...

You can't have a European Super League without domestic league competitions with the big clubs in as well, unless the TV money makes up for the lost revenue on the difference in fixtures multiplied by seat sales at 60000+ seater grounds it wouldn't make sense for clubs to do it.

The PL will not just sit back and let Man U b8gger off with sole ownership of their TV rights without some equally well paid lawyers arguing their case.

Why do the big clubs have to play in a domestic league?

Why wouldn't an expanded European Premier League of say 16 elite clubs be self-sufficient with the big English clubs just entering domestic cup competitions if they felt like it - commercial interests would lead the PL and SFA (re. Celtic/ Rangers) to want them to enter. I'm well aware that neither of those clubs could currently compete playing wise - but they have the right potential commercial capacity.

The revenue from world wide TV would be enormous and drive the PL devoid of its main assets to much lower returns - I don't think there is any legal obstacle to any of this -will just take 2 or 3 years

 

[Steven]

This is all pure conjecture but...

You can't have a European Super League without domestic league competitions with the big clubs in as well, unless the TV money makes up for the lost revenue on the difference in fixtures multiplied by seat sales at 60000+ seater grounds it wouldn't make sense for clubs to do it.

The PL will not just sit back and let Man U b8gger off with sole ownership of their TV rights without some equally well paid lawyers arguing their case.

Why do the big clubs have to play in a domestic league?

Why wouldn't an expanded European Premier League of say 16 elite clubs be self-sufficient with the big English clubs just entering domestic cup competitions if they felt like it - commercial interests would lead the PL and SFA (re. Celtic/ Rangers) to want them to enter. I'm well aware that neither of those clubs could currently compete playing wise - but they have the right potential commercial capacity.

The revenue from world wide TV would be enormous and drive the PL devoid of its main assets to much lower returns - I don't think there is any legal obstacle to any of this -will just take 2 or 3 years

It is inevitable, though perhaps not in the format you suggest. ;-) :mrgreen:

 

[Redditch Fox]

This is all pure conjecture but...

You can't have a European Super League without domestic league competitions with the big clubs in as well, unless the TV money makes up for the lost revenue on the difference in fixtures multiplied by seat sales at 60000+ seater grounds it wouldn't make sense for clubs to do it.

The PL will not just sit back and let Man U b8gger off with sole ownership of their TV rights without some equally well paid lawyers arguing their case.

Why do the big clubs have to play in a domestic league?

Why wouldn't an expanded European Premier League of say 16 elite clubs be self-sufficient with the big English clubs just entering domestic cup competitions if they felt like it - commercial interests would lead the PL and SFA (re. Celtic/ Rangers) to want them to enter. I'm well aware that neither of those clubs could currently compete playing wise - but they have the right potential commercial capacity.

The revenue from world wide TV would be enormous and drive the PL devoid of its main assets to much lower returns - I don't think there is any legal obstacle to any of this -will just take 2 or 3 years

It is inevitable, though perhaps not in the format you suggest. ;-) :mrgreen:

Agreed Steven - its very difficult to project the exact format - but the overall effects will be similar - its been tried and tested - ITV digital being a classic example - that Television audiences only really want the glamour sides playing bid games. Football is not a sport its a commercial commodity these days and nothing can be done about that.

 

[Dickovforengland!]

This is all pure conjecture but...

You can't have a European Super League without domestic league competitions with the big clubs in as well, unless the TV money makes up for the lost revenue on the difference in fixtures multiplied by seat sales at 60000+ seater grounds it wouldn't make sense for clubs to do it.

The PL will not just sit back and let Man U b8gger off with sole ownership of their TV rights without some equally well paid lawyers arguing their case.

Why do the big clubs have to play in a domestic league?

Why wouldn't an expanded European Premier League of say 16 elite clubs be self-sufficient with the big English clubs just entering domestic cup competitions if they felt like it

Assume a 16 club super league that would be 30 fixtures a year.

Compared to the current 38 plus maybe 6 home legs in Champions League. That is a difference of 14 fixtures, assume 60000 capacity for the big clubs and £30 a seat that makes lost revenue of £25.2 MILLION a year per club. To make it viable the TV deal would have to pay this on top of current TV money to all clubs, so thats an extra £403.2 MILLION A YEAR ON TOP of the TV money already being paid. Unless some big bank decides to stop dealing in money sell all its assets and puts it all in to a 3 year European Super League deal it ain't going to happen.

Suppose the domestic FA's got a bit narked by 4 big clubs doing one, they could then ban them from domestic cup competitions and the 14 fixtures suddenly becomes 25+ which makes the TV deal even more expensive.

My point is a Euro Super League is not inevitable neither is any court backing Glazer in a pursuit for sole TV rights to Man Utd's matches. It may happen it may not but it is not definite. Especially as Mr Glazer has made no statements. Its pure conjecture.

 

[Steven]

This is all pure conjecture but...

You can't have a European Super League without domestic league competitions with the big clubs in as well, unless the TV money makes up for the lost revenue on the difference in fixtures multiplied by seat sales at 60000+ seater grounds it wouldn't make sense for clubs to do it.

The PL will not just sit back and let Man U b8gger off with sole ownership of their TV rights without some equally well paid lawyers arguing their case.

Why do the big clubs have to play in a domestic league?

Why wouldn't an expanded European Premier League of say 16 elite clubs be self-sufficient with the big English clubs just entering domestic cup competitions if they felt like it

Assume a 16 club super league that would be 30 fixtures a year.

Compared to the current 38 plus maybe 6 home legs in Champions League. That is a difference of 14 fixtures, assume 60000 capacity for the big clubs and £30 a seat that makes lost revenue of £25.2 MILLION a year per club. To make it viable the TV deal would have to pay this on top of current TV money to all clubs, so thats an extra £403.2 MILLION A YEAR ON TOP of the TV money already being paid. Unless some big bank decides to stop dealing in money sell all its assets and puts it all in to a 3 year European Super League deal it ain't going to happen.

Suppose the domestic FA's got a bit narked by 4 big clubs doing one, they could then ban them from domestic cup competitions and the 14 fixtures suddenly becomes 25+ which makes the TV deal even more expensive.

My point is a Euro Super League is not inevitable neither is any court backing Glazer in a pursuit for sole TV rights to Man Utd's matches. It may happen it may not but it is not definite. Especially as Mr Glazer has made no statements. Its pure conjecture.

I read the following at Sports and competition law

In the FA Premier League (FAPL) case, the Commission went one step further.[15] In contrast to previous decisions, the FAPL had to undertake to organise separate bids for separate packages and, most importantly, from 2007 onwards, the FAPL has to ensure that no single buyer is allowed to acquire exclusively all of the centrally marketed live rights packages.

The new requirement to prevent a single buyer was notably due to the fact that, in the first public FAPL tender, concerning the period 2004–2007, BSkyB acquired all of the rights packages on offer. Following a parallel Commission investigation into BSkyB’s acquisition of those TV rights, a provisional agreement was reached in December 2003, under which BSkyB has to offer a number of top Premier League matches each season to another broadcaster. However, given the very specific circumstances of the UK case, it may not be concluded that the Commission will always oppose a single buyer.

So I presume from the 2007/8 season onwards there will be a fragmentation of TV rights amongst the Clubs anyway. Time will tell how this plays out. ;-) :mrgreen:

 

[Dickovforengland!]

This statement is effectively saying that no company can exclusively broadcast all centrally marketed Premiership games. Which is not the same as saying a club can have the right to broadcast all of its games. The aim of the statement is to prevent monopolies not create them.

As you say Steven it will be interesting to see how it plays out.