Redslo Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 isnt that due to go up (by quite a bit)? They are estimating about 30 percent in 2015-2016. http://ewn.co.za/2014/09/16/Champions-League-gravy-train-keeps-on-running Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Do you think Tesco should subsidise family run corner shops? jesus, get a life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 TBF they are not subsidising their rivals though are they - without the lower leagues their wouldnt be room for young players to learn trade and progress onto bigger clubs. There is too much money going into Prem agents/players wages that should be funnelled down to those leagues to ensure there is a structure. If the Premier League didn't give money to the lower leagues the lower leagues would still exist. They'd just have to rely on income they generate themselves and cut their cloth accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 To be fair you actually said we were the most attractive team for a player outside of the top 4. This doesnt = best team. Utter rubbish, no I didn't. If you still think I did, provide a link to a post on this forum where I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Do you think Tesco should subsidise family run corner shops? WTF has that got to do with anything...do the corner shops sell good to Tesco's? Do they develop and nurture stuff for Tesco's? Your ideas are more Poundland.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 jesus, get a life WTF has that got to do with anything...do the corner shops sell good to Tesco's? Do they develop and nurture stuff for Tesco's? Your ideas are more Poundland.... Its an example of a business subsidising another business. The lower leagues would still exist without handouts. Why should lower league businesses benefit from the success of the Premier League? In how many other industries does that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Utter rubbish, no I didn't. If you still think I did, provide a link to a post on this forum where I did. You did. I'm not going to go back to 2009 to find a link pal, trawling through the nonsense you post i'd be there for weeks! Strange how to seperate people both remember you saying it though isn't it. I'm not surprised you're denying it!! Do you still think not revealing our injuries to keep the oppostion guessing is the work of a tactical genius like you said it was under Adkins??! You mus think Koeman is a clown because he openly discusses them?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 TBF they are not subsidising their rivals though are they - without the lower leagues their wouldnt be room for young players to learn trade and progress onto bigger clubs. There is too much money going into Prem agents/players wages that should be funnelled down to those leagues to ensure there is a structure. If you funnel money down to lower leagues, all that will happen is a general wage increase across the board. What would be best for football IMO would be a restriction on what percentage of income could be spent on wages. Supposing it was something like 60% it should ensure everyone lives within their means. I'm sure there are laws against it and ways around it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Its an example of a business subsidising another business. The lower leagues would still exist without handouts. Why should lower league businesses benefit from the success of the Premier League? In how many other industries does that happen? HOw many other industries have just signed a £5b TV deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Mental. The winners are,in no particular order...... The clubs..... Expensive car dealerships.....Maserati,Bentley and alike. Michelin starred restaurants.....The footballers The agents....... I think that's about it. The losers......where do we start.... Oh yeah,the fans is a good start.... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk May not be true. A major purpose of the salary cap is to stop new domestic TV money from all going into increased player wages. Instead, currently, salaries can only go up by 4 million pounds a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 HOw many other industries have just signed a £5b TV deal? Why does that matter? Not TV deal's, but plenty of industries have multi hundreds of millions/billion £ deals. They don't all give handouts to their smaller competitors who didn't contribute to winning the contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Why does that matter? Not TV deal's, but plenty of industries have multi billion deals. They don't all give handouts to their smaller competitiors. we should have lived within our means when we were in league 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Loads....many IT companies pay others for R&D. Many have loss leaders and prop up others to keep them going. There is a growing gulf - hadn't you noticed in your little games you administer that several teams had disappeared...guess why? But you are only interested in the glory division.....give me an away day at D&R, Crewe, Plymouth than a day at Arsenal with all the glory hunting numpties you seem so at home with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 That's infeasible, you cant obligate a club to build bigger stadiums. It just wouldn't work, you are basically telling clubs they have to fork out tens of millions on stadium expansion which won't actually bring them extra income. As MLG pointed out, it's not fair to ask any business to subsidise it's rivals. It would be like telling Apple that Nokia are losing money because they build inferior products, so they have to hand over a load of cash to help them compete. But the likes of Chelsea, Man Utd , Liverpool are subsidising the other PL clubs, by not negotiating their tv deals individually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 we should have lived within our means when we were in league 1 We did, our means included the resources of our owners and the size of our fanbase relative to the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 And now, we're not even the best team INSIDE the top 4!! Yes. The past five years have certainly not all been wine and roses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 we should have lived within our means when we were in league 1 Your point being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 But the likes of Chelsea, Man Utd , Liverpool are subsidising the other PL clubs, by not negotiating their tv deals individually. they probably are content with that due to the incredible global reach the premier league has due to its tv deals.....which probably generates huge external/over seas income that they might not have got. maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 But the likes of Chelsea, Man Utd , Liverpool are subsidising the other PL clubs, by not negotiating their tv deals individually. They aren't allowed to negotiate individually TV deals so thats irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalek2003 Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 I don't have Sky. I prefer listening on the wireless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 This story doesn't really directy impact me that much because, unlike so many of you lot, I just don't pay for TV - the licence fee excepted - and never will. How can you possibly cope Charlie without a relentless diet of expensive football on the gogglebox virtually every day I hear you ask? Well the answer is 'remarkably easily' because a long time ago I figured out that while I'm certainly a keen Southampton fan, I live and die this wonderful old club, I'm not really an avid follower of football in general. I'll happily watch Premier League highlights on MOTD, I might even steal a Saints game off the Internet every now and then (if some kind soul on here will find a working link for me) but if not Dave Merrington and BBC Radio Solent will do. But as for Chelsea v Man City etc I could hardly care less to be frank about it - I'd rather watch a DVD or even a old Star Trek episode - on Freeview of course! So if you don't want to pay a ever increasing sum every month to Rupert bloody Murdoch for your TV footy fix then don't - you never know you might soon find that you don't even miss it. Madness. Also, the games are part of the basic package for my US cable viewing pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 We did, our means included the resources of our owners and the size of our fanbase relative to the league. £30m worth of debt turned into equity. Yeah, we lived in our means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 What would be best for football IMO would be a restriction on what percentage of income could be spent on wages. Supposing it was something like 60% it should ensure everyone lives within their means. I'm sure there are laws against it and ways around it though. I totally agree with that...also there should be a restriction of foreign players in a match day squad as well to give the academy lads more chance(less cost). We might as a country even do better at internationals - I think Spain and Germany have far more home grown than the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 We did, our means included the resources of our owners and the size of our fanbase relative to the league. Handouts, basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 (edited) £30m worth of debt turned into equity. Yeah, we lived in our means. Handouts, basically. The money came from our owners, that is within our means. It didn't come from a competitor. It is to Saints credit they attracted such an owner, it isn't a handout from rival companies... it was investment to grow the club from the owners. Edited 10 February, 2015 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Handouts, basically. You mean investment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 But the likes of Chelsea, Man Utd , Liverpool are subsidising the other PL clubs, by not negotiating their tv deals individually. Which would be impractical to put into place as both teams would have to agree a deal before every live TV game. It's partly why I think having games available on PPV at a fixed price would be a good idea. It would bring revenue to all teams across the PL and FL but the more popular games would still get more subscribers. For example fewer people would watch a dull bottom half PL game like Villa against Stoke but they might watch a top of the table clash between two decent League 1 or Championship teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 I see football as a kind of 'pyramid' with the tip being the Premier League and the lower levels being the rest of the game. If we take away the bottom of this triangular structure, then the pyramid with either collapse, or more likely just fall down to become a much smaller and massively less impressive pyramid. I'm sure even Turkish and MLT will agree that would be a bad thing. PS - As I'm the very first person to ever draw this brilliant football/pyramid analogy I have copyrighted it from here 'til eternity. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 The money came from our owners, that is within our means. It didn't come from a competitor. It is to Saints credit they attracted such an owner, it isn't a handout from rival companies. Money from the TV deal goes to the Premier League and they distribute it. The Premier League as an entity is not "competing" with the clubs in the Football League who benefit from solidarity payments. Southampton FC aren't giving its "competitors" money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 They aren't allowed to negotiate individually TV deals so thats irrelevant. Of course, it's relevant - it's simply an extension of cross-subsidising nonprem clubs and not letting simple supply and demand decide allocations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 I see football as a kind of 'pyramid' with the tip being the Premier League and the lower levels being the rest of the game. If we take away the bottom of this triangular structure, then the pyramid with either collapse, or more likely just fall down to become a much smaller and massively less impressive pyramid. I'm sure even Turkish and MLT will agree that would be a bad thing. PS - As I'm the very first person to ever draw this brilliant football/pyramid analogy I have copyrighted it from here 'til eternity. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! Not sure why you've namechecked me in this. That's exactly what i'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish fingers Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Sickening amount of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 I see football as a kind of 'pyramid' with the tip being the Premier League and the lower levels being the rest of the game. If we take away the bottom of this triangular structure, then the pyramid with either collapse, or more likely just fall down to become a much smaller and massively less impressive pyramid. I'm sure even Turkish and MLT will agree that would be a bad thing. PS - As I'm the very first person to ever draw this brilliant football/pyramid analogy I have copyrighted it from here 'til eternity. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! people have been warning others about this and bubbles bursting for 20 years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 I see football as a kind of 'pyramid' with the tip being the Premier League and the lower levels being the rest of the game. If we take away the bottom of this triangular structure, then the pyramid with either collapse, or more likely just fall down to become a much smaller and massively less impressive pyramid. I'm sure even Turkish and MLT will agree that would be a bad thing. Not subsidising lower league clubs won't see the end of the lower leagues. They would still exist, but should only use income generating from their own revenue streams not rely on handouts from other companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Which would be impractical to put into place as both teams would have to agree a deal before every live TV game. Err, no. Clubs would just sell their own home games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Do you think Tesco should subsidise family run corner shops? I can't speak about Tesco because I have little knowledge of them as an American. (Although my sister worked for Tesco for a while as an English version of a lawyer.) However, I can talk about Walmart. When they were expanding, they would come into a town and under price the local merchants and underpay their employees. Unlike most businesses at the time, they did not provide health care. Now days many Walmart employees are paid so little that they are eligible for Food Stamps (a program to provide food to low income families). In effect, Walmart is free riding off the (inadequate) American safety net and destroying smaller businesses in the process. So yes, they should subsidize other business by paying more in taxes or paying their employees a fair wage. Of course, the real solution would be for the USA to increase the minimum wage to a sensible level but companies like Walmart lobby heavily to stop this. Translating things back to football terms, the Premier League can only exist in its current form because it sits atop the English football pyramid. Instead of giving back in a fair way, they have managed to change the rules recently so that bigger clubs can now force smaller clubs to sell their players at ridiculously low prices. So yes some of this new huge TV contract should go to the lower level clubs so that they can provide better training facilities and other benefits to the players many of whom might well be sold to Premier League clubs in the future for a mere pittance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Not subsidising lower league clubs won't see the end of the lower leagues. They would still exist, but should only use income generating from their own revenue streams not rely on handouts from other companies. Aren't premier league clubs relying on handouts from another company then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 If you funnel money down to lower leagues, all that will happen is a general wage increase across the board. What would be best for football IMO would be a restriction on what percentage of income could be spent on wages. Supposing it was something like 60% it should ensure everyone lives within their means. I'm sure there are laws against it and ways around it though. League 1 and League 2 FFP is a limit on the percentage of turnover than can be spent on player wages--60 and 55 percent respectively. But rich owners can kick in unlimited money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 I don't think this money is good for the game at all, just means more foreign mercenaries and a sh!tter national side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 They aren't allowed to negotiate individually TV deals so thats irrelevant. It's clearly relevant. You were debating what is fair or not, not what is 'allowed'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Although my sister worked for Tesco for a while as an English version of a lawyer. I suspect your sister was soliciting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 The losers......where do we start.... Oh yeah,the fans is a good start.... Particularly those who play amateur football on a Sunday.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 It's clearly relevant. You were debating what is fair or not, not what is 'allowed'. Absolutely. The TV deal exists because the mass market want to pay to watch Man United and Liverpool. It's only a sense of fairness from those clubs that means clubs like Saints - who no one apart from their own fanbase really want to see - benefit from the handouts. Saints in the PL are completely subsidised by the market power of the big clubs. In a way it's kinda the same as Tesco giving money to a corner shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 £30m worth of debt turned into equity. Yeah, we lived in our means. Now you are talking sh!te that you quite obviously don't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 (edited) Not subsidising lower league clubs won't see the end of the lower leagues. They would still exist, but should only use income generating from their own revenue streams not rely on handouts from other companies. Many sectors have training levies -indeed there used to be a nationwide scheme in the UK. In effect, this is a central pot into which firms are obliged to pay, with funds then disbursed to support training and development. Many smaller firms have been traditionally exempt from these levies or received a larger share of them relative to their contributions - in effect, creating a form of redistribution. You could say there are philosophical parallels with the way in which is TV deal structured. Edited 10 February, 2015 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Now you are talking sh!te that you quite obviously don't understand. Yeah obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Err, no. Clubs would just sell their own home games. Or you could do that, I wont argue that's a bad idea. League 1 and League 2 FFP is a limit on the percentage of turnover than can be spent on player wages--60 and 55 percent respectively. But rich owners can kick in unlimited money. They've got the right idea with that but it needs to be applied universally across all leagues. There should also be a rule whereby a single, be it a sponsor or just a sugar daddy, cannot invest more than a certain percentage of a clubs income. That way people can still invest if they think they can make a profit in a higher league but they can't throw silly money at a club to get them into the Prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Yeah obviously. LOL....Yeah very obviously.... No one turned any debt into equity in league one :lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Now you are talking sh!te that you quite obviously don't understand. We didn't live within our means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stug76 Posted 10 February, 2015 Share Posted 10 February, 2015 Is there some sort of cash prize for proving MLG wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now