PDA

View Full Version : Premier League & Sky Lose at ECJ


ORAC
4th Oct 2011, 11:02
Premier League lose case on selling of lucrative television rights at European Court of Justice (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8805756/Premier-League-lose-case-on-selling-of-lucrative-television-rights-at-European-Court-of-Justice.html)

The Premier League have lost their case in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against a pub landlady who used a foreign decoder to show live matches at 3pm on Saturdays.

The ruling by the ECJ could have major implications for how the Premier League sell their broadcast rights both in Britain and Europe.

The ECJ said in a statement: "A system of licences for the broadcasting of football matches which grants broadcasters territorial exclusivity on a member state basis and which prohibits television viewers from watching the broadcasts with a decoder card in other member states is contrary to EU law."

The case came to the ECJ after Portsmouth publican Karen Murphy appealed after losing a court action brought against her by the Premier League for using the Greek satellite decoder. The case in the ECJ also involves the suppliers of such decoder cards to those pubs.

In its judgment delivered today, the ECJ ruled: "National legislation which prohibits the import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards is contrary to the freedom to provide services and cannot be justified either in light of the objective of protecting intellectual property rights or by the objective of encouraging the public to attend football stadiums."

The implications of the ruling could not just affect the Premier League but every sport that sells broadcast rights on a country-by-country basis. It is also how Uefa, for example, sell the rights for the Champions League. It could also affect the sale of TV programmes generally across Europe.

The ECJ also ruled that only the opening video sequence, the Premier League anthem, and pre-recorded clips showing highlights of recent Premier League matches and various graphics could be protected by copyright. "By contrast, the matches themselves are not works enjoying such protection," says the ruling. Pubs would have to obtain permission to broadcast those opening sequences, said the ruling, but not the match itself.

Seldomfitforpurpose
4th Oct 2011, 11:23
Good news for Greece at last, should make a fortune out of decoder sales :ok:

hellsbrink
4th Oct 2011, 16:25
According to a report on the Beeb website, there could be some issues for Sky, the EPL, etc due to one landlady having the Euro Court of Justice back her argument to allow her to "subscribe" to the football via a Greek provider, at less than half the price Sky are robbing pubs per month in the UK. This means that, if the High Court in the UK agrees with the decision (very likely), there may be a free-for-all across Europe for sports subscriptions on TV which will obviously have repercussions for Sky TV, etc. Obviously, there are still some copyright issues at stake regarding this (EPL logos, etc) but it seems like the stranglehold of Sky and ESPN (who bought Setanta after Setanta went bust) in the UK could be smashed, with the possibility of cheaper subscriptions as Sky tries to claw back revenue IF masses of people decide to swap providers.

In some ways, this can only be a good thing, and not only in the UK as the ruling will apply to all satellite subscribers across Europe. Obviously the downside is that some things may be cut or prices for movies, etc, could be raised to compensate for the lost revenue.

What say ye? "A good thing" or not, IF the High Court agrees with the ECJ?

BBC News - Premier League games can be shown on foreign decoders (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15162241)

ExXB
4th Oct 2011, 17:07
Do you really think so? I think that the poor Greek pub-owners are going to have a hefty increase coming their way. No way will they reduce prices in their main (i.e. largest) market - but will standardise prices at the highest level. They will lose some of their incremental revenue from overseas, but that will be the lessor of two evils, for them.

It's not up to the High court to agree with the ECJ - on these issues the ECJ have full power, and there is no opportunity to appeal.

Parapunter
4th Oct 2011, 22:20
Legally or otherwise they will never lock it down against the determined. Last year Virgin customers received new smartcards. This was the introduction of Nagra 3 encoding. Up until then, you could buy a German cable receiver for £100, run some dodgy software into it, plug it in to your cable feed and have all of Sky for free and thousands of people did.

Nowadays there's no end of streaming technologies around if you're really determined to watch the football free, it's easy to do, before you even get into areas such as card sharing, greek decoders etc. In any event, the EU represents about 10% of EPL revenues, this isn't a watershed moment, but what will damage Sky is the thieving over the internet.

Persoanlly, I hope it does. If the billions poured into the game disappeared, then we would see an end to immoral spectacle of teenage millionaires riding around in Bentleys and all the shady people attracted by the smell of money and we could have our game back.

Seldomfitforpurpose
4th Oct 2011, 22:33
If the billions of pounds poured into the game disappeared then it would be back to the dark ages with regard to stadia and the like.

Not sure why folk get so hot and bothered about what other folk are paid, it's nowt but Market forces with regard to sport :ok:

G-CPTN
4th Oct 2011, 22:55
Formula One Management vigorously defend the rights of their video transmissions and any clips that appear on Youtube and the like are soon taken down.
FOM protect their transmissions with 'trade-marks' (including the phrase Formula One) and any use of their logo is opposed - it is said that the same could apply if the Premier League appended their logo to transmissions.

Just saying.

The ECJ concluded that Murphy and any publican like her would be breaching the copyright of the Premier League, by going Greek, so to speak. Although the judges were clear that there can be no copyright in live coverage of the football match itself, there is copyright in "the opening video sequence or the Premier League anthem" or even the league's logo. Only the league can decide whether you have the right to transmit those to a paying audience,
Indeed, the sanguine Premier League was already noting that it will be easy to stop publicans using its footage without permission by ensuring that its logo is on screen all the time, or its theme music played every time a replay is aired
From:- Analysis: pub landlady v Premier League | Media | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/04/analysis-pub-premier-league-rights?newsfeed=true)

Parapunter
4th Oct 2011, 22:57
Because in my youth, clubs took local kids on at 13-14, made them clean boots and paid them a decent wage relative to their peers. They tended to stay with the clubs for the greater part of their careers as well as the community they grew up in.

Now however, clubs take in dozens of six and seven years olds, churn the vast majority of them out within three years, sign players from all over the world, denying those same local kids their chances. Pay the sums of money that makes a mockery of the tube driver debate, which in turn erodes any sense of loyalty in sport and leaves one wondering exactly what it is they're supporting - any Man Citeh fans care to comment? and encourages a flight of talent if narrow targets aren't met, such as we've seen and will see more of no doubt at Arsenal.

The money to be made has encouraged patchy investment into the lucky few clubs, leading directly to a distorted two or even three tier premier league, encouraged by Sky with the idea of super Sundays. Haven't noticed QPR v Wigan in that line up lately. The others meanwhile have allowed themselves to drift into huge debt in attempts to keep up with the arms race.

Sky has wrecked English football's top tier in my view. It's got nothing to do with some form of jealousy in respect of wages, it's a car crash that few seem to be noticing. So yes, I miss the days when Notts Forest could challenge for the title out of the blue or Southampton would win the cup. Now it's a predictable procession with the prizes almost always handed out to the same half a dozen sides and it's by far a worse spectacle for it.

Seldomfitforpurpose
4th Oct 2011, 23:07
Years ago your TV, clothes, car, food etc etc etc etc were all made in UK with a fair wage paid to the worker and fair price paid by the customer.

Nowadays all that stuff come from all parts of the globe where the worker gets paid **** all, the price you pay nowhere near reflects the cost of production yet still folk pay, it's what Market forces are all about so why single football out :confused:

As regard players wages not sure how or why they are the root and branch cause of the so called problems with the modern game :confused:

cdtaylor_nats
4th Oct 2011, 23:13
Surely all that Sky need to do is make the next contract for recording rights at premier league grounds rather than transmission rights. If they hold the only source of the games then it will defeat the ruling.

Parapunter
4th Oct 2011, 23:23
Ah market forces, where prices are set by competition and demand. Show me where the competition is coming from, accepting that the demand exists.

You can't because Sky run an effective monopoly, charging what they like and consequently the market and in turn the league is distorted and therefore damaged. Did you forget about Portsmouth SFFP? Are you aware of how much debt is in the premier league awash as it is with all this fair and square cash?

Do you know what percentage of turnover Man City's wage bill was last year? Are you going to carry on ignoring the facts that stare you in the face whilst repeating the point about how you don't understand why wages could be viewed as a crippling problem for clubs?

None so blind as those who won't see as they say.

Big Tudor
4th Oct 2011, 23:24
I think it will prove a hollow victory. As has been said previously we can expect higher subscription charges and/or more encoding and control of the broadcast.
I just find it so galling that big companies like Sky use the open market concepts of the EU to increase their revenue, and yet run screaming to the courts when their customers try the same. :mad:

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 00:11
accepting that the demand exists.

None so blind as those who won't see as they say.

I fully concur :ok:

hellsbrink
5th Oct 2011, 05:18
All this talk about Sky upping price is ok, but y'all are ignoring the small matter of the EPL being the ones who get stung too. Sky cannot control all TV rights across the EU as they do not "own" the copyright on the games, that is the EPL. If they up their prices in, for example, Greece and Portugal, then people switch off and that means they lose money. If Sky up the prices in the UK, people turn off and cancel their subs, Sky loses money.

Other companies start marketing their subscriptions in the UK for less money, people switch, Sky either has to drop the prices or lose subscribers and, since subscriber numbers drive advertising prices, lose a bigger chunk of money. The same applies to furriners, if the EPL make them pay more, then they can run the sport as a loss leader, get more subscribers and recoup the money through increased advertising fees.

The other issue is that the broadcast deals are signed for "x" years. They cannot just be changed to suit the EPL, Sky and ESPN (the owner of the company formally known as Setanta) losing money because their monopoly is being broken up. So the possibility of subscribing to a furrin channel at a massively reduced cost will be there for the near future until it's time for contracts to be renewed, nothing will change overnight.

One last thing. The "copyright" issue. I reckon any attempt to enforce that would fail as they would have to go after the broadcaster and not the subscriber for broadcasting the logos in the UK. And since permission to use logos, etc, would have already been granted, probably without the geographic restrictions the EPL and Sky are talking about now, I reckon any attempt to restrict trade via that method would fall flat on it's ass.

Parapunter
5th Oct 2011, 08:00
Other companies start marketing their subscriptions in the UK for less moneyThere are no other companies as things stand. As the deal stands, ESPN has a very slim offer by comparison to Sky. Outside of that, there is only a highlights deal with the BBC I.e. Match of the day. If we are discussing the UK end of things, at the time of writing Sky run a monopoly on live televised football.

If Sky up the prices in the UK, people turn off and cancel their subs, Sky loses money. There is some evidence however to support ths at least in terms of attendances. Clubs have increased admission prices heavily in recent years, the one that springs to mind is Arsenal who upped the cost of a season ticket by 6.5% this year whilst simultaneously losing two of their best players. Conversely Wigan often let people in for a fiver and still can't fill the DW, although in their case they're a relatively weak side in a big rugby league town.


The net result of Sky's involvement in UK sport over the past twenty years or so has shown us that where they get involved, we ultimately have to pay more to watch what was freely available in the past. I see cricket disappearing from FTA channels, Football, any number of minority sports and soon, Formula one. Sky have effectively been allowed unfettered access to put up walls around sport in the UK & incredibly, I seem to be in a minority considering this to be a degradation.

One final thought, if you enjoy watching live football in the pub and understand that the pub is paying north of £15,000 per annum for a subscription, then just how much ought that tasty pint cost?

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 10:05
You could also argue that if Tesco can sell a pint of cider/lager/bitter, in fact you pick your tipple, for a fraction of the pub price why are pubs charging what they do?

Or with that in mind how come any of us ever go into pubs?

More importantly if pubs are on such tight margins and are all going to the wall in droves where the hell do they get the £15k pa to pay for sky?

In fact you could apply that daft logic across just about all of the service industry.

When I look back at my youth and consider what was on offer on the box then as compared with now I am really amused as to how anyone considers that now is a bad time?

I pay SKY somehwere in the region of £2 per day which gets me on average 5 live football matches a week, champions league football, all the cricket I can watch, outstanding Rugby coverage, more golf than you can shake a stick at and thats before I have watched a movie or any other show.

When you consider the real time costs of actually going to watch all or in fact any of that live, went to watch Man U with my lad almost 6 years back and the day out cost me a whole bunch more than £60, I really am struggling to see how this is a bad deal :confused:

Parapunter
5th Oct 2011, 10:17
More importantly if pubs are on such tight margins and are all going to the wall in droves where the hell do they get the £15k pa to pay for sky?They don't.

http://www.almr.org.uk/presspdfs/76.pdf

Pubs ditch Sky football as credit crunch bites | Business | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/aug/17/fooddrinks.bskyb)


When I look back at my youth and consider what was on offer on the box then as compared with now I am really amused as to how anyone considers that now is a bad time?I guess you're not a cricket or a formula 1 fan without access to Sky then. It's actually not all about you and your ability to pay. There is a wider argument beyond your own personal horizons that putting up pay walls around sport may not actually serve the interests of the people as a whole.

No market benefits from being held in a monopoly and that is what Murdoch has done. It comes down to two points of view. Either Murdoch is a shrewd business man who risked millions to drive subscriptions to his tv services and is benefitting from that risk taking or he has permanently damaged sport for the majority of fans who don't or can't subscribe. There are something like 1.5 - 2 million subscribers to Sky sports in the UK. That means there are 60+ milion who don't get to see it. But hey as long as you find your £2 a day, no problem.

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 10:43
I guess you're not a cricket or a formula 1 fan without access to Sky then. It's actually not all about you and your ability to pay. Yes it is and it really is as simple as that and all this sack cloth and ashes crap is exactly that. I cant afford an Aston Martin so does that mean that Aston Martin are bad people for pricing me out of the market? There is a wider argument beyond your own personal horizons that putting up pay walls around sport may not actually serve the interests of the people as a whole. Compare sport from 30 years ago to what we have today and we are now light years from where we used to be.

No market benefits from being held in a monopoly and that is what Murdoch has done. Microsoft dont do to badly but then again Gates depsite being a genius is also nearly always labelled a villain. It comes down to two points of view. Either Murdoch is a shrewd business man who risked millions to drive subscriptions to his tv services and is benefitting from that risk taking or he has permanently damaged sport for the majority of fans who don't or can't subscribe. There are something like 1.5 - 2 million subscribers to Sky sports in the UK. That means there are 60+ milion who don't get to see it surely that should read 60+ million who dont subscribe. But hey as long as you find your £2 a day, no problem. Nice Daily mail finish :=

Ironically I suspect that just about every pub in England that has Sky TV will be jam packed this friday for the England Montenegro game, I suspect the Rugby World Cup has seen bar takings swell and it seems that quite a few of the pubs where I live do not to bad at all at weekends with live footy etc :ok:

Parapunter
5th Oct 2011, 10:49
I cant afford an Aston Martin so does that mean that Aston Martin are bad people for pricing me out of the market?You'll be along presently to argue that Aston Martin ownership is in the national interest?

Microsoft dont do to badly but then again Gates depsite being a genius is also nearly always labelled a villain.Two wrongs make a right????

Nice Daily mail finish:zzz::zzz:

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 11:06
Two wrongs make a right???? Two guys with vision and clarity go on to make an absolute mint and thats a bad thing :rolleyes:

:zzz::zzz:

Looking back on your footballers wages comments and the above the picture is now clearing :ok:

Parapunter
5th Oct 2011, 11:22
Really? and exactly what is it you see in this picture?


Incidentally; Two guys with vision and clarityBit of a distortion. Maybe you should ask Paul Allen his opinion on Bill Gates, or any number of hacked celebrities/politicians/murder victims families theirs of the Murdoch clan.

Fareastdriver
5th Oct 2011, 12:20
£!5,000/year adds up to £41/day. If there are forty people in a small pub the publican has to make £1 profit out of each punter. Should there only be three decent matches or sporting events a week then the other four days he has to make £40 profit out of the handful who are there not watching some vague tournament in San Antonio. The only good news is because it is driving pubs out of business the pubs that survive will get more customers.

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 12:30
Just a thought but if a landlord/lady is incapable of making, on average £40 a day in profit maybe they should be looking at other ways of making a living.

Parapunter
5th Oct 2011, 12:43
Try more like £25-£40,000 pa depending on rateable value. That makes £95/day but considering premier league football is shown on average 3 nights a week and turnover is commensurate, then that argument fails as effectively the pub has to find an extra £223/day assuming the turnover is only increased on actual match days.


Any more crumbs from the table to peck at, or does anyone actually have a response to the big issues with this?

Pubs & Clubs – Sky Business (http://business.sky.com/PubsClubs/)

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 12:55
Not bad advertising which will no doubt be proved very effective this Friday evening when any pub with Sky will be packed out for the footy, and lord only knows how much ale will be purchased if one of the home nations reaches the Rugby World Cup final :ok:

But just a thought if a pub has to make on average, your figures not mine, £95 a day with Sky installed and cant manage it surely simply taking Sky out is the logical business solution........or did I miss something......:confused:

Parapunter
5th Oct 2011, 13:04
You missed a lot, but I'll take it all as a no from you.;)

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 13:49
Nope got it all for sure, it costs roughly £40 a day for a pub to have Sky TV and costs me £2 a day.

We are all free to choose to buy or not to buy.

Love him or loath him Murdoch has made squillions.

Sport on TV nowadays is lightyears ahead of where it was when Shirley Crabtree was bouncing round the ring on a saturday afternoon :ok:

Parapunter
5th Oct 2011, 13:59
That's a matter of opinion. Besides, you don't want to fall into the trap of confusing the quantity of sport with the quality of it.

Still waiting for you to tell me the Man City wage bill vs turnover for 2010 and why that figure would be a problem for say...West Ham or Watford town.

Tankertrashnav
5th Oct 2011, 16:42
It's actually not all about you and your ability to pay. There is a wider argument beyond your own personal horizons that putting up pay walls around sport may not actually serve the interests of the people as a whole.



I lost all interest in following football a long time ago, but I certainly enjoyed it when I used to follow Carlisle United as a young man (even though a certain level of blind loyalty was required!)

I am amazed to see that a standing ticket to see this unfashionable League 1 club (I still think of that as the 3rd division) now costs £18 on match day as opposed to the few shillings it used to cost me. The increase is way ahead of inflation, and what used to be a fairly cheap afternoon out is now something which would certainly stretch the resources of someone of limited means. It matters nothing to me what a Premier League footballer earns, but I think Parapunter has a fair point that pay walls have certainly gone up around many sports, football in particular.

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 16:56
That's a matter of opinion. Besides, you don't want to fall into the trap of confusing the quantity of sport with the quality of it.


Now then let's have a look shall we, let's take a typical week.

Monday Night usually features a Premier League fixture, not always but usually.

Tues/Wed/Thurs will normally feature Champions League/Domestic Cup comp/Championship or lower league fixture/Spanish football or at least a combination if the above.

Friday night more often than not live football from the Championship or other league.

Saturday either lunchtime or evening kick off but live footy.

Ford Super Sunday usually two live games with live Spanish footy in the evening.

By my reckoning that's over half a dozen games to watch each week.

If as a ball park we say the very generous average cost of entry to each game is £20 then entry alone comes to £120 and that's before I have paid a penny in travel costs.

Now let's see what that greedy shyster Murdoch charges me, 7 x £2 = £14 for a weeks sporting entertainment and that's before I have even thought about watching the Rugby or the Golf or the cricket or F1

Go on tell me, this is a bad deal how :confused:

Parapunter
5th Oct 2011, 17:00
Still waiting for you to tell me the Man City wage bill vs turnover for 2010 and why that figure would be a problem for say...West Ham or Watford town.

SFFP, you can hack away all day (and you do) at the same narrow value for money points and still miss like Emile Heskey any of the salient stuff around the issue. This I imagine is because beyond the narrow, it's only 2 quid a day argument, you know that I am making serious points about the unintended consequences of Sky's involvement in British sport and you persist in repeatedly not answering those points.

Now, how about it?

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 17:03
No doubt the greedy Mr Murdoch is directly to blame :rolleyes:

Big Tudor
5th Oct 2011, 17:14
The argument is not about your £14 p/w to watch your set SFFP. The 'nice' Mr Murdoch is charging British pubs £480 p/m to watch what Greek landlords only have to pay £118 p/m for. And when an enterprising British landlady decided to utilise the EU rules on fair trade the 'nice' Mr Murdoch threw his teddies out of the cot and fined her which, with added costs, came out at £8,000.

All of a sudden a £40 match day ticket seems cheap in comparison!

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 17:28
BT,

Please feel free to point exactly where I disagree with you :confused:

But also tell me why Murdoch is wrong to charge one price in one country and a different price in another :confused: Using your logic surely the cost of a gallon of petrol as sold by BP here and BP in the US would have to be the same,,,,

hellsbrink
5th Oct 2011, 17:56
There are no other companies as things stand. As the deal stands, ESPN has a very slim offer by comparison to Sky. Outside of that, there is only a highlights deal with the BBC I.e. Match of the day. If we are discussing the UK end of things, at the time of writing Sky run a monopoly on live televised football.

But, of course, due to the ruling by the ECJ that could now change. Pubs, especially, could now go for the furrin subscription and save over £300 per month.

You see, you are looking at things with blinkers on. The ECJ has effectively driven a coach and horses through the monopoly deals for live sporting events in every EU country as far as satellite TV goes. In the UK that means that now people can subscribe to a furrin provider for less money than they fork out for Sky. As I said, Portugal has one channel purely for EPL, Greece obviously has their own deal, Spain has their own deal, etc, etc, etc. Now there is not the same restriction, in theory, regarding using a satellite feed from, say, Greece so there should also be no restrictions on furrin providers advertising and selling their wares in the UK. That means, in theory, "competition" in, basically, every EU country (not so sure about here as most people either have cable or use broadband TV, not many sat dishes around, shall we say, but you get my drift).

Sure, Sky, ESPN and the EPL (as far as the UK is concerned) *could* start throwing some hurdles in the way to try and use "copyright" as a means to prevent them losing money in this way, but that would only lead to more action in the ECJ over "restriction of trade" as well as inviting monopoly inquiries into the whole business.

So how this pans out is open to question. If the EPL raises the costs of "broadcast rights" so everyone has to pay the UK price, then they lose customers. If Sky have to lower their costs for football and then try to add the lost earnings to regular subscriptions/phone/internet then people move elsewhere and they lose money.

Let's just say that, from what is known so far, things could get messy for Sky as the TV deals are not due to be renegotiated until during the 2013/2014 season. A bar saving over £36k p.a. for footy for 2 years has to be tempting for them, no matter how you look at it.

hellsbrink
5th Oct 2011, 18:01
But also tell me why Murdoch is wrong to charge one price in one country and a different price in another

Point of information.

The Premier League own the rights to the TV broadcasts, they are the ones who "sell" the broadcast rights to different companies in different countries, not Murdoch's lot.

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 18:11
Thanks for that Hells :ok:

Big Tudor
5th Oct 2011, 18:14
hellsbrink Apologies, I stand corrected.

SFFP I have no problem with different prices in different countries per se. What I do have a problem with is people from one part of a so called 'open economy' not being able to choose the cheaper option. How would you feel having your tank dipped on arrival in Dover for traces of cheaper petrol and then being fined for using it?

10bob
5th Oct 2011, 18:46
The next time I'm in Portsmouth, I'm going to buy a lot of cheap booze in an off-licence round the corner and take it to her pub to drink. If she insists I buy the stuff she is selling at a higher price, I'll be off to the ECJ.

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 19:03
BT,

You have got me wrong as I totally agree with what you are saying.

Parapunter
5th Oct 2011, 19:27
But, of course, due to the ruling by the ECJ that could now changeBut it hasn't and if you read my post properly, you would have seen that I was VERY VERY careful to make entirely clear that I was talking about the here and now. not some unspecified point in the future. If however, you know what that will be, would you be kind enough to pass on this Saturday's lottery numbers ?

Here, I'll even remind you of how careful I was to make sure you wouldn't mistakenly accuse me of jumping thr gun, even though you did.

There are no other companies as things stand. As the deal stands...OK? Remember now?

You see, you are looking at things with blinkers onSo, no I'm not. You are talking about something different to me. Please pay closer attention in future.

Mr Chips
5th Oct 2011, 19:28
wow, this thread is going in all sorts of directions!

Rugby World Cup is FREE TO AIR on ITV

I have a problem with the whole finance thing around the footy, especially the premiership. In my own opinion, paying anyone £250,000 per week/month is an obscene amount of money and I can't see how this makes economic sense (that player needs to bring in revenue of £250,001 in their own right to make it worthwhile)

BUT, this money comes from the "fans" by inflating ticket prices, merchandise and Sky subscription

Now, if a hollywood film employs an actor for £1 million pounds, it will cost me £7.50 at the cinema and £13 when it comes out on DVD

If the actor were to cost £10 million it will still cost me £7.50 and £13

See what i mean?

In this case - well done to the landlady for finding a cheaper loophole!

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 19:35
Just a thought but enough fans seem happy enough to pay the ticket prices, the cost of shirts etc or even for Sky TV so what's the problem with the players being paid what they are paid :confused:

Parapunter
5th Oct 2011, 19:38
I would be interested in hearing from the Murdoch apologists & assorted genius contributors why it is that if Sky has been such a force for good in the top tier of the game we now have a collective debt of £3 billion across the clubs in the premier league and how it is that situation came about.

I mean Murdoch's poured billions in to the game, made it better all round so how is it Everton don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of? How is it Portsmouth won the FA cup & went bust to all intents and purposes two years later? How has giving the clubs all this money led to £3 billion of debt?

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 20:02
Murdoch apologists and assorted genius, dear oh dear oh dear :rolleyes:

Parapunter
5th Oct 2011, 20:06
Yet another non answer sffp. This would be about the eigth or ninth question I have put, eliciting either sarcasm, repitition or avoidance. Do you have a menaingful contribution to make?

Seldomfitforpurpose
5th Oct 2011, 20:26
Sorry Para but I made my point earlier, that you disagree is pretty obvious by the tone of your posts. I think Sky has brought a lot of great things for the sports lover to enjoy and you think they are root of all evil and to blame for every ill there is within sport.

I am sat enjoying Brentford v Charlton so I will leave you in peace whilst I get my £2 worth :ok:

Tankertrashnav
6th Oct 2011, 10:18
SFFP - I think Para and I are making the point that without the massive price inflation brought about by the influence of TV, you could have been watching Brentford live for under a tenner rather than the 20 quid minimum that it will cost you now. I base my assertion on the fact that when I was watching football, a match ticket and a gallon of petrol cost around the same at about five shillings (25p). Try getting in to see a match for 6 pounds now! Say what you like about Sky but it's a fact that live football is now beyond the means of people on a modest income, except as an occasional treat.

(sorry my keyboard's playing up - can't get a pound sign!)

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th Oct 2011, 10:44
TTN,

I live in a market town in Wiltshire so for me the nearest Prem League footy would be a toss up between London, Swansea, Wolverhampton or Brighton.

The nearest footy of any kind would be Bristol or Swindon.

A return ticket on the train to the closest which is Swindon is about £4 and even if ticket prices for the match were the same as the halcyon days of old its still going to cost me £10 just to go watch Swindon. I dread to think of the cost of going to watch Man Utd or Spurs etc.

Last night I got to watch a couple of things on Sky 1, live footy and a movie all for £2 which when compared to even your prices of old is bloody good value.

The thing that has always confused me is if ticket prices are so out of reach for the common man how come stadiums are full each week of tatooed feckwit sun readers baying at the moon with regards to parentage or masterbation and the like :E

Slfsfu
6th Oct 2011, 13:30
Parapunter – you appear to be looking for an answer. This might help.

The fact that the EPL clubs are so heavily in debt is a function their own mismanagement. The debt was not created by Sky but by the club managements. Nobody forced them to spend money like it was going out of fashion – it was their decision and theirs alone.

An analogy – just because the banks offered folk money, they didn’t have to take it. When the proverbial hit the fan it suddenly became the banks fault, rather than people taking responsibility for their own actions:ugh:

Now, a question for you. Do you accept the need for personal responsibility (include the "person" of the "body corporate") or do you think that people are entitled to blame others for self imposed bad decisions?

Parapunter
6th Oct 2011, 15:38
I disagree with your analysis SLSFU.

But only in part. Sky pours money into the premier league. Even relegation will guarantee £30-40 million. What Sky did was enable the strong, well suported clubs to go out and buy players, usually foreign finished products, denying in the process, youngsters their chance - in order to mount attempts to strangle the competition and maintain a hold on the all important top four places. If you understand how Sky distributes income amongst the clubs then you'll understand how it reinforces the financial position of the bigger clubs by design.

The likes of say Watford, last time they had a place in the EPL had a budget of 4% of Man Utd. A club like Watford is an extreme example, but I use it to illustrate the disparity between clubs.

In that scenario, chairmen have difficult decisions to make. If for example you are doing well, somewhere like tenth to sixth, it's reasonable to think you may mount a challenge on the top four places and achieving that place in the champions league will open up serious funding - 2m euro for the playoffs, 4m euro for the group stages + 500,000euro per group stage match. On top of that, the higher up the league, the more money you earn from Sky.

So you asked me about personal responsibility. I hope you can see why chairmen may and have in the past bet the farm on ECL qualification, but for every disastrous Ridsdale, there are three Moxeys, Levys & Kroenkes, it is unusual for clubs to bet their future on one season.

However, the fortress erected by Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, City, Liverpool and to a lesser extent Spurs means that if you want to compete and get on terms, you'd better buy players and pay them what they want. And make no mistake, football clubs are under enormous pressure to compete and from there clubs accrue debt. I feel sorry for supporters of well run clubs like Wolves who run the whole thing within their means and as a result are really never going to win anything as they stand. However, I feel even more sorry for Leeds fans who still haven't recovered from the madness inflicted by their board where future ticket sales based on repeated ECL qualification were put up as security against huge loans to fund player purchases with catastrophic consequences.

So, no I don't disagree that personal responsibility is left at the door when Sky get involved, however, I do believe that Sky have created the conditions that have led to clubs trying desperately to compete with the chosen few via their income distribution, marketing, tv scheduling, Super Sunday gimmickry and quite a few other things they have done. In short, if you're not Man Utd, Chelsea, City, Liverpool, Spurs, City or Arsenal, you're stuffed.

Slfsfu
6th Oct 2011, 17:57
Parapunter – why the double negative at the end “I don’t disagree” – why not use the simpler “I agree”?:confused: (which belies your opening statement).

Your comments “bet the farm” and ”responsibility left at the door “ say it all. The rest is just a sob story seeking to justify bad management:{. It is their choice to seek “cups” nobody forces them to.

Be sure that the recent judgement has created uncertainty surrounding the exclusive right to broadcast. This constitutes a “business risk” for Sky and they will (rightfully) use it to offer a lower price (or not raise the bid as much as the EPL would expect) when the broadcasting rights next come up for bidding. As far as some clubs are concerned words like “tumbling”, “cards”, “house” and “down” spring rapidly to mind:sad:

Ho, hum

Parapunter
6th Oct 2011, 18:03
It is their choice to seek “cups” nobody forces them to.This is possibly the crassest remark yet and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what the game is all about. You may as well blame pilots for air crashes - well they chose to start the engines, it's their own fault.:rolleyes:

I appreciate being from Aberdeen will colour ones judgement in football matters, given the execrable state of the Scottish game, but if you choose to ignore the general thrust of an argument in favour of settling on the parts that reinforce a conviction, well, then there's no debate is there?

And remember, that I answered the question you asked young man.:=

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th Oct 2011, 18:09
Why when someone disagrees with you do you have to be so rude in response.
A simple sorry but I don't see it that way would have sufficed but instead you attack with an unjust insinuation that because he is from Scotland he cannot possibly be as clever as you with regard to sports matters, bloody rude :=

Parapunter
6th Oct 2011, 18:13
Because I am a bounder of the first water. Next question.

Slfsfu
6th Oct 2011, 18:43
Parapunter – don’t infer a nationality simply by ref to an address. I reside in Aberdeenshire but I’m not a Scot.

I’m well familiar with the game, indeed a number of games, though confess (if such is necessary) to preferring rugby and cricket. If you want “the game” go to your local amateur football club.

EPL and their clubs are not about “the game” they’re about a business:ugh:

I do like the ref to “young man” :ok:– it’s been a very long time since someone called me that:D

No probs Seldom but tks anyway - I'm well able to look after myself. When it comes to actually thinking instead of rhetoric it's a "no contest":ok:

Parapunter
6th Oct 2011, 19:10
We find common ground. Although a Spurs supporter by trade, my second team, although not amareurs, is Barrow FC. One of the directors is a good friend.

Slfsfu
6th Oct 2011, 20:24
Parapunter – then, satisfied, I shall retire to my cold, damp cave high atop the mountain and reflect on the meaning of life and why it always rains on the Saturday:(.

Be advised I gaze over the valleys below and, upon any sign of irrational behaviour or ill considered argument, shall cast upon the masses (well, JB folk anyway:ok:) a wrathful message created without pen or paper,sent by a mouse without tail or twitching nose :E

Parapunter
6th Oct 2011, 20:31
Deeper than a deep thing.

Remember though that there are historic links twixt N17 and AB1 and dark they be too. One would not want to have to thumb ones long since retired little black book in order to seek out a foe. The past is a foreign country and one has lost ones passport.

Slfsfu
8th Oct 2011, 12:30
Parapunter – RWC - save for another week of hotel bills, I’m a happy bunny today – now do you get my nationality? (lest you’re still wondering blue is not my favourite colour:=)

As you've probably worked out - we know even less about "footie" than the skirted folk:E

Parapunter
8th Oct 2011, 12:46
Fablas?

As far as the RWC is concerned, they should have brought Rooney on to do some kicking.:rolleyes:

Slfsfu
8th Oct 2011, 13:06
Cyumraeg

Rooney is a petulant prat - mind his MU performance does seem to have improved now that he has hair. Maybe Samson was onto something:E

Seldomfitforpurpose
8th Oct 2011, 13:36
Whilst my love of most things UK will have me cheering Wales all the way to the final and hoping upon hope they can win it I just know should it happen we will never ever ever hear the bloody end of it :ok:

Slfsfu
8th Oct 2011, 13:50
Seldom – rather like ’66 and “Wilkinson’s drop goal” then:sad:

All morning I’ve had to listen to why England lost rather than about Wales winning. It should be called the EBC rather than the BBC:(

Seldomfitforpurpose
8th Oct 2011, 14:14
With a foot in both camps, Scots dad but me born in England, this morning had me grimacing and grinning. The feeling of really wanting England to come back and beat the French was mixed with the rather pleasing notion that after last weeks chest beating and gloating there would be quite a Pruners who are now as sick as the proverbial after losing in such fashion to the French :E