Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

[Archived] Premiership In New £625m Tv Deal

Alex Rover

Recommended Posts

SIMON GARNERS 194

SIMON GARNERS 194

Posted
Posted

I can only see positives with Rovers getting upwards of nearly 40 million....fantastic for the clubs coffers and future.40 million equates to roughly 5 years income for a fizzy pop league club like Burnley,it really puts even Rovers on another level.

On the ticket prices, only Liverpool and Utd fixtures should be full whack,how about £20 for Adults and a £5 for kids across the board next year...does our club have the balls to do it for a season and then access the response?

THE GAP IS WIDENING!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blue phil Champions League

blue phil

Posted
Posted

For me the problem is it's actually pretty level playing field in terms of TV money for all clubs. OK I think the champions and runners-up will get an EXTRA £50m, poor loves must be short of a centre-forward, but after this the TV revenues are roughly equal. Realistically an extra million or so for finishing a few places higher or lower makes no difference.

Consequently gate money is crucial as it makes a real difference to the club's ability to compete. 75,000 at OT against 22,000 at Rovers, every match, plus the knock on effects of sponsorship etc.

Not sure about your logic here , Paul . You say that the placing money makes no difference but that the gate money is crucial , but surely being placed a few notches higher would neutralise the effects of our dodgy attendances .

I would go further and argue that gate money is less crucial now that Sky money is greater . What is crucial is that we begin to get HIGHER attendances . That must be worth a couple of points or more over a season . Also Sky are less likely to pay money to film a game played in front of 15,000.

One thing about all this is that teams coming up from the Nationwide face a massive challenge if they want to stay there . A good manager is more crucial than ever for those clubs - and for clubs like us come to that who are never gauranteed a non relegation threatened season .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
daren Premier League

daren

Posted
Posted

Next season it's essential that supporters see the benefits of this. We got £26,800,000 according to the BBC for finishing 6th last season, and Chelsea got £30 million for winning. Quick "rule-of thumb" calculation is that 6th place gets 10.67% less than the winners.

Next season 20th place gets 30 MILLION POUNDS. Winner gets £50,000,000. Given percentages worked out above, (rounded up) £44,600,000 million for sixth which is £17,900,000 increase. That's equivalent to 31,000 people paying £30 for 19 games (£17,670,000 to be exact).

Pass some of this on! No more than £20 for a game. Sums are:

Theoretical 35,000 at £20 for 19 games is £13,300,000.

More realistic, 20,000 at £20 for 19 games, £7,600,000. Our season average so far is 20,482 (using figures from the official Rovers site)

Please, bear in mind that I made up ticket prices in all that!

Taking that second figure, the official numbers for the £15 pounds game against Bolton ar 27,662, our second highest attendance of the season! Sure it's a derby and all, but an overall increase in attendance is not unreasonable to expect with consistently lower prices. Falling attendances are not entirely money related, but it is an issue, and a season long lower pricing structure might convince people to attend. Not reducing them, on the other hand sends a strong "up yours" to the fans and will result in even lower attendances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
92er Champions League

92er

Posted
Posted

The person at Deloitte who specialises in football argued in the Daily Telegraph recently that 60% of the extra income is likely to go to the playersb, but that clubs should start to put in performance contracts on the basis that football is now becoming much more like some other industries as far as performance is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
philipl World Cup

philipl

Posted
Posted

(Lack) of money for Chasmpionship clubs and John Williams quoted on distribution of funds. The doubling of parachute payments could well severely distort competition in the Championship. For the first time for many seasons, all three relegated clubs are serious contenders to come straight back up again from the fizzy drinks league.

I wasn't aware that overseas revenues are equally divided across the 20 Premiership clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul World Cup

Paul

Posted
Posted

John Williams

"It was very good last weekend that the fourth-placed club beat the first and third beat second," says John Williams, the chief executive of Blackburn. "But most people can now name at the beginning of a season who the top four will be. The Premier League is becoming uncompetitive and we need a change to the way the TV money is distributed to create a more level playing field."

I hope this is John being diplomatic because it is clear the PL is already uncompetitive. In my view this is a significant aspect of declining attendances. The chance of winning the league has been removed for 16 clubs and their support, turning up to watch a football match is very much about entertainment. If the games lack entertainment people stop coming. Quite what effect the domination of the PL by the big four has on individual teams and players motivation is also open to question. I believe the lack of competition through the season is a real factor in our terrible performances against lower placed opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CAPT KAYOS Champions League

CAPT KAYOS

Posted
Posted

well done john in once again leading the way in ticket prices. now all we can hope is other clubs follow and dont get sscared of bigger clubs who want to keep high prices because they can charge what ever they like :brfc::brfc:

Thinking about it though ... if Rovers do this they need to be very careful re the exisitng S/T holders ie the Benefits have to be more for them otherwise where is the loyalty and fairness if the lapsed fans get exactly the same deals etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timmy Premier League

Timmy

Posted
Posted

It's the lead story in the guardain sport section

Couldn't see this snippit in the article but from the BBC gossip column:

Blackburn are to slash ticket prices amid fears that the Premiership is losing its appeal for fans. (The Guardian)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OscarRaven Premier League

OscarRaven

Posted
Posted

John Williams

I hope this is John being diplomatic because it is clear the PL is already uncompetitive. In my view this is a significant aspect of declining attendances. The chance of winning the league has been removed for 16 clubs and their support, turning up to watch a football match is very much about entertainment. If the games lack entertainment people stop coming. Quite what effect the domination of the PL by the big four has on individual teams and players motivation is also open to question. I believe the lack of competition through the season is a real factor in our terrible performances against lower placed opposition.

Spot on. The championship will potentially go the same way apart from the fact any relegated team is usually decimated by high profile departures. Although if a team can find the right mix of players they could potentially yo-yo and make a tidy profit!

Football has become boring, we are lucky (MH gets the credit here) that we are a team on the up but if we were M'boro I'd be taking up fishing for the increased entertainment at lower cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul World Cup

Paul

Posted
Posted

Thinking about it though ... if Rovers do this they need to be very careful re the exisitng S/T holders ie the Benefits have to be more for them otherwise where is the loyalty and fairness if the lapsed fans get exactly the same deals etc.

John Williams:

Although we have to remain as competitive as we can, we are committed to returning some of the increase in TV money to our supporters from next season."

This is all I have seen from JW and there is absolutely nothing in the statement that should concern ST holders. I cannot imagine JW and TF making offers to the walk-ons which are not available to ST holders. In fact I'd back the club to come up with something imaginative in an attempt to sell more STs as well as encourage the walk-ons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blue phil Champions League

blue phil

Posted
Posted

Truthfully I'd rather we spent this money to make sure we stay up. We're not going to GET to the big money if we don't have the players to beat anybody.

Harsh reality- a few more punters or Premiership football. I know which one I'd go for.

Sparse crowds are hardly an incentive to attracting - or keeping - decent players . Who wants to play in front of sub 15,000 gates ? They'll always be looking elsewhere . And players give more in front of bigger crowds ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
Wolverine Uefa Europa League

Wolverine

Posted
Posted

I would have preferred to see the money invested in the game in general.

Beause of the spiralling controversy of missed incidents and incorrect decisions from officials, the argument for technology to be used in football has reared its head again this season. The biggest argument against is always the cost to implement for lower league teams.

In the interests of football, would it not be a good idea to upgrade the technology for as many teams as possible? Or maybe invest in the grass roots of football?

As West Ham climb to thier inevitable safety safe in the knowledge that Tevez has technically only cost them £5.5m, football fans in general know that the bumper payouts will benefit no one in the game except one or two players and expecially thier agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluebruce World Cup

bluebruce

Posted
Posted
I would have preferred to see the money invested in the game in general.

Beause of the spiralling controversy of missed incidents and incorrect decisions from officials, the argument for technology to be used in football has reared its head again this season. The biggest argument against is always the cost to implement for lower league teams.

In the interests of football, would it not be a good idea to upgrade the technology for as many teams as possible? Or maybe invest in the grass roots of football?

As West Ham climb to thier inevitable safety safe in the knowledge that Tevez has technically only cost them £5.5m, football fans in general know that the bumper payouts will benefit no one in the game except one or two players and expecially thier agents.

Good shout

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.