Legod Second Coming Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 (edited) Regardless of the merits of the discussions on whether Sky saved football, isn't it also true that football saved Sky? That's also true - SKY needed subscribers and football gave it to them. It was a marriage genuinely made in heaven! Edited 5 September, 2008 by Legod Second Coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 That's also true - SKY needed subscribers and football gave it to them. It was a marriage genuinely made in heaven! Do you work for Sky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 That's also true - SKY needed subscribers and football gave it to them. It was a marriage genuinely made in heaven! Do you work for Sky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 Do you work for Sky? LOL! No, used to negotiate with them for rights though!! I have a lot of sympathy with them as a result. If you want to know why football is fecked up, don't ask an organisation which is commercially adept and simply buys rights from the rights holders, ask the rights holders who couldn't organise a proverbial in a proverbial!! Just watch what happens to cricket now they have accepted the Stamford match... These sports never learn that it is about what you DO with the money your media partners and sponsors are willing to offer that is KEY to the success of the sport... There is no issue with a sport receiving vast sums of money for its commercial rights. There is a massive problem if that sport cannot create an equitable distribution of the money because its protagonists place self-interest ABOVE the interest of the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 Do you work for Sky? LOL! No, used to negotiate with them for rights though!! I have a lot of sympathy with them as a result. If you want to know why football is fecked up, don't ask an organisation which is commercially adept and simply buys rights from the rights holders, ask the rights holders who couldn't organise a proverbial in a proverbial!! Just watch what happens to cricket now they have accepted the Stamford match... These sports never learn that it is about what you DO with the money your media partners and sponsors are willing to offer that is KEY to the success of the sport... There is no issue with a sport receiving vast sums of money for its commercial rights. There is a massive problem if that sport cannot create an equitable distribution of the money because its protagonists place self-interest ABOVE the interest of the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 Hilarious that seemingly Redknapp feels he is a manager, rather than just someone who takes envelopes and assembles teams together on high wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 Hilarious that seemingly Redknapp feels he is a manager, rather than just someone who takes envelopes and assembles teams together on high wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 LOL! No, used to negotiate with them for rights though!! I have a lot of sympathy with them as a result. If you want to know why football is fecked up, don't ask an organisation which is commercially adept and simply buys rights from the rights holders, ask the rights holders who couldn't organise a proverbial in a proverbial!! Just watch what happens to cricket now they have accepted the Stamford match... These sports never learn that it is about what you DO with the money your media partners and sponsors are willing to offer that is KEY to the success of the sport... There is no issue with a sport receiving vast sums of money for its commercial rights. There is a massive problem if that sport cannot create an equitable distribution of the money because its protagonists place self-interest ABOVE the interest of the sport. Ok - I'll go back to blaming the feckless FA for all our ills and the Sports Minister (not forgetting Rupes and 'arry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 LOL! No, used to negotiate with them for rights though!! I have a lot of sympathy with them as a result. If you want to know why football is fecked up, don't ask an organisation which is commercially adept and simply buys rights from the rights holders, ask the rights holders who couldn't organise a proverbial in a proverbial!! Just watch what happens to cricket now they have accepted the Stamford match... These sports never learn that it is about what you DO with the money your media partners and sponsors are willing to offer that is KEY to the success of the sport... There is no issue with a sport receiving vast sums of money for its commercial rights. There is a massive problem if that sport cannot create an equitable distribution of the money because its protagonists place self-interest ABOVE the interest of the sport. Ok - I'll go back to blaming the feckless FA for all our ills and the Sports Minister (not forgetting Rupes and 'arry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokingFun Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 In today's Guardian - an ongoing poll:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/poll/2008/sep/03/curbishley.manager.transfers Overwhelmingly 88% of supporters don't want anyone but managers in charge of transfers. It does not matter what the fans want to see in terms of who should be in charge of transfers. In fact there is absolutely NO WAY managers should be in charge of transfers. Look at it this way - would you really want someone that understands football only in charge of constructing and implementing a financial deal worth many millions of pounds. Of course not, you want a financially astute businessman in charge of doing the deal that understands all aspects of business, finance, compliance, legislation etc etc. The football manager should only have a say in identifying the players they require to progress. It is then the job of the finance people to do the deal within any budgetary constraints applicable. That is sound business and like it or not football is now a business...a bloody big one at that and anyone who thinks the manager should do these deals themselves really needs a reality check, as I cannot think of too many football managers with the contracts knowledge needed to construct such deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokingFun Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 In today's Guardian - an ongoing poll:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/poll/2008/sep/03/curbishley.manager.transfers Overwhelmingly 88% of supporters don't want anyone but managers in charge of transfers. It does not matter what the fans want to see in terms of who should be in charge of transfers. In fact there is absolutely NO WAY managers should be in charge of transfers. Look at it this way - would you really want someone that understands football only in charge of constructing and implementing a financial deal worth many millions of pounds. Of course not, you want a financially astute businessman in charge of doing the deal that understands all aspects of business, finance, compliance, legislation etc etc. The football manager should only have a say in identifying the players they require to progress. It is then the job of the finance people to do the deal within any budgetary constraints applicable. That is sound business and like it or not football is now a business...a bloody big one at that and anyone who thinks the manager should do these deals themselves really needs a reality check, as I cannot think of too many football managers with the contracts knowledge needed to construct such deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 It does not matter what the fans want to see in terms of who should be in charge of transfers. In fact there is absolutely NO WAY managers should be in charge of transfers. Look at it this way - would you really want someone that understands football only in charge of constructing and implementing a financial deal worth many millions of pounds. Of course not, you want a financially astute businessman in charge of doing the deal that understands all aspects of business, finance, compliance, legislation etc etc. The football manager should only have a say in identifying the players they require to progress. It is then the job of the finance people to do the deal within any budgetary constraints applicable. That is sound business and like it or not football is now a business...a bloody big one at that and anyone who thinks the manager should do these deals themselves really needs a reality check, as I cannot think of too many football managers with the contracts knowledge needed to construct such deals. Although I am a firm believer in the manager having a strategy which the board supports (rather than vice versa), whichever the scenario surely all the manager has to do is identify that he needs, for example, the best left-back available and that he is thinking of Cole or Bridge. The Chairman/DoF/FD/CEO then comes back and says, OK, we have found Gareth Bale. And they all agree that's fine. The problem only arises when the manager builds his team around certain key players and they are pulled from him without his knowledge, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 It does not matter what the fans want to see in terms of who should be in charge of transfers. In fact there is absolutely NO WAY managers should be in charge of transfers. Look at it this way - would you really want someone that understands football only in charge of constructing and implementing a financial deal worth many millions of pounds. Of course not, you want a financially astute businessman in charge of doing the deal that understands all aspects of business, finance, compliance, legislation etc etc. The football manager should only have a say in identifying the players they require to progress. It is then the job of the finance people to do the deal within any budgetary constraints applicable. That is sound business and like it or not football is now a business...a bloody big one at that and anyone who thinks the manager should do these deals themselves really needs a reality check, as I cannot think of too many football managers with the contracts knowledge needed to construct such deals. Although I am a firm believer in the manager having a strategy which the board supports (rather than vice versa), whichever the scenario surely all the manager has to do is identify that he needs, for example, the best left-back available and that he is thinking of Cole or Bridge. The Chairman/DoF/FD/CEO then comes back and says, OK, we have found Gareth Bale. And they all agree that's fine. The problem only arises when the manager builds his team around certain key players and they are pulled from him without his knowledge, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 I thought the manager identified the players and the football secretary did all the legal stuff in agreement with the Chairman somewhere in the middle. In days gone by... Just updated sort of. That is except for those who met at motorway service stations with case full of wonga. Appears a bit more straight forward to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 I thought the manager identified the players and the football secretary did all the legal stuff in agreement with the Chairman somewhere in the middle. In days gone by... Just updated sort of. That is except for those who met at motorway service stations with case full of wonga. Appears a bit more straight forward to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 Quite right DD. Sky actually SAVED football in this country which very few people seem to recall... Saved it from what? Sky put the footy on TV and in return make a bag of money. Some of this money is given back to football. Has it helped your local team? has it helped the national team? Do you like going to games on a Saturday evening or sunday afternoon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 Quite right DD. Sky actually SAVED football in this country which very few people seem to recall... Saved it from what? Sky put the footy on TV and in return make a bag of money. Some of this money is given back to football. Has it helped your local team? has it helped the national team? Do you like going to games on a Saturday evening or sunday afternoon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 Saved it from what? Sky put the footy on TV and in return make a bag of money. Some of this money is given back to football. Has it helped your local team? has it helped the national team? Do you like going to games on a Saturday evening or sunday afternoon? Err, yeah, it built them a 32,000 seat stadium - what sort of question is that??? Has it helped the national team? YES. By playing alongside Ronaldo and Henry and previous players of their calibre we SHOULD have improved as a nation. We have not because, in the paraphrased words of Jamie Carragher: "I couldn't give a sh!t if I miss a penalty for England so long as I don't miss one for Stanley Park" Who do you think is paying for Cappello? SKY!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 Saved it from what? Sky put the footy on TV and in return make a bag of money. Some of this money is given back to football. Has it helped your local team? has it helped the national team? Do you like going to games on a Saturday evening or sunday afternoon? Err, yeah, it built them a 32,000 seat stadium - what sort of question is that??? Has it helped the national team? YES. By playing alongside Ronaldo and Henry and previous players of their calibre we SHOULD have improved as a nation. We have not because, in the paraphrased words of Jamie Carragher: "I couldn't give a sh!t if I miss a penalty for England so long as I don't miss one for Stanley Park" Who do you think is paying for Cappello? SKY!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martel Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 Rather than say Sky "saved" football you could argue they just re-branded it, along with the Taylor report to turn it into the big business that is, with over-inflated wages / ticket prices which have priced a lot of fans out from going (especially some London clubs) and turned grounds into the souless sanitised places they are now. it's all about image. one day it will end up like formula one with a world league playing, each team named after a corporate sponsor! I have to agree with JRM, it was far more to do with Re-branding, the bubble has too and will burst at some time in the future. I have a friend who is a lifelong chelsea supporter, he informs me that a lot of fans are of course delighted with the results they now get; however, they also feel that a lot of the excitement has gone. They go to games expecting to win everyone of them, their is no sense of will we win or lose. Surely that is why we go to games, it is a competition to see who the best side is on the day and whilst we want to win them all; we also know that is not the reality of sport. Sorry but the high stakes in the premiership have to a large exstent killed the game we love, frankly it needs a super season long European league for the top five clubs against the rest of Europe. We would then go back to divisions 1,2,3 and 4 and get our game back, it is the only way forward as I see it, unless we can convince some very wealthy person to bank role the club and accept the losses season after season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martel Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 Rather than say Sky "saved" football you could argue they just re-branded it, along with the Taylor report to turn it into the big business that is, with over-inflated wages / ticket prices which have priced a lot of fans out from going (especially some London clubs) and turned grounds into the souless sanitised places they are now. it's all about image. one day it will end up like formula one with a world league playing, each team named after a corporate sponsor! I have to agree with JRM, it was far more to do with Re-branding, the bubble has too and will burst at some time in the future. I have a friend who is a lifelong chelsea supporter, he informs me that a lot of fans are of course delighted with the results they now get; however, they also feel that a lot of the excitement has gone. They go to games expecting to win everyone of them, their is no sense of will we win or lose. Surely that is why we go to games, it is a competition to see who the best side is on the day and whilst we want to win them all; we also know that is not the reality of sport. Sorry but the high stakes in the premiership have to a large exstent killed the game we love, frankly it needs a super season long European league for the top five clubs against the rest of Europe. We would then go back to divisions 1,2,3 and 4 and get our game back, it is the only way forward as I see it, unless we can convince some very wealthy person to bank role the club and accept the losses season after season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 I have to agree with JRM, it was far more to do with Re-branding, the bubble has too and will burst at some time in the future. I have a friend who is a lifelong chelsea supporter, he informs me that a lot of fans are of course delighted with the results they now get; however, they also feel that a lot of the excitement has gone. They go to games expecting to win everyone of them, their is no sense of will we win or lose. Surely that is why we go to games, it is a competition to see who the best side is on the day and whilst we want to win them all; we also know that is not the reality of sport. Sorry but the high stakes in the premiership have to a large exstent killed the game we love, frankly it needs a super season long European league for the top five clubs against the rest of Europe. We would then go back to divisions 1,2,3 and 4 and get our game back, it is the only way forward as I see it, unless we can convince some very wealthy person to bank role the club and accept the losses season after season. The problem with life, is that yearning for something is far more pleasurable than actually having it. Hope is what sustains people not possessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 the term 'cycle' isand was used loads on here when we went down...football is all about cycles we were told time and time again.. we (as in english football) ruled the roost in the late 70's early 80's domestically until the european ban....whilst serving that ban the Italian league took over and money ruled..they smashed the world record transfer fees time and time again, signed the very best players in the world and won...err, everything...how the hell was a domestic league going to compete with that when the ban was up??? the english game had no chance unless it got some serious money behind it, which it did and it took 7 seasons for an english team to win the big one in europe...7 seasons of sky and the multi million pound business to achieve something.. will it last, who knows!!! I doubt the bubble will burst anytime soon as unlike the Italian league, the premiership is a million miles more exciting and we are far better (as a country) in marketing our game abroad.... one thing I also doubt is the idea of a european break away league happening anytime soon...this idea has been debated for years and we are no closer...should it happen, it would not be long before we have ANOTHER top 2-4, and then what???? as soon as 10 years ago, you only had to be a very good team to win the league and beat (pretty much) one team, Man UTD...NOW, to win anything major in this country or europe you have to have an unbelievable season home and in europe and not only be a very good team but be a great team... all that has change is the bar has risen massively.......but teams do have a chance, Everton blew it in the CL qualifiers...Spurs blew it in that famous last game of the season, leeds blew it (big time) and newcastle blew it... it wont be long before (imo) villa or in the top 4....they will do it without breaking the bank too.....look at pompey, they have not broken the bank in premiership terms really...... just as we are not there anymore, it hardly means the prem is dying on its arse...nor english football for that matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 so much so that sky has more NFL games than prem games..where Stetanta has more and more prem games every year and now has england games... what does that tell you? if it is not sky it is someone else.. thanks largely go sky, the standard of football is soo much better now than what it was even 10 years ago But, sadly, not the standard of English football. In an English Premiership team how many are English - or even British? The pendulum has gone too far and we now have very average players being paid obscene wages. Their averageness becomes obvious when they play internationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 But, sadly, not the standard of English football. In an English Premiership team how many are English - or even British? The pendulum has gone too far and we now have very average players being paid obscene wages. Their averageness becomes obvious when they play internationals. Sadly, this will not change until the FA re-structure football to place England at the pinnacle. Which is how we won the Ashes back and how SCW was able to win the rugby world cup. The problem with football is that club sides are considered by players and fans alike as being more important than the national side. Capello will have to be a genuis to win anything with England - much as it pains me to say it. We have the playing talent. We simply do not have the correct mindset or structure to win a world-cup... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 September, 2008 Share Posted 5 September, 2008 But, sadly, not the standard of English football. In an English Premiership team how many are English - or even British? The pendulum has gone too far and we now have very average players being paid obscene wages. Their averageness becomes obvious when they play internationals. ok...take the two best teams in england..man utd and chelsea....the two finalists of the champions league, which is regarded as the biggest prize in club football... then count how many regularly play in those two team who are english.. wes brown rio ferdinand owen hargreaves michael carrick paul scholes wayne rooney gary neville (when fit) ashley cole john terry wayne bridge frank lampard joe cole we do have very good players..probably too many and manager after manager for england seem to be obsessed in trying to play them all... now, whether the players care if they play for england is a whole different arguement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 6 September, 2008 Share Posted 6 September, 2008 (edited) ok...take the two best teams in england..man utd and chelsea....the two finalists of the champions league, which is regarded as the biggest prize in club football... then count how many regularly play in those two team who are english.. wes brown rio ferdinand owen hargreaves michael carrick paul scholes wayne rooney gary neville (when fit) ashley cole john terry wayne bridge frank lampard joe cole we do have very good players..probably too many and manager after manager for england seem to be obsessed in trying to play them all... now, whether the players care if they play for england is a whole different arguement... For every decent foreign player in the Prem, there are at least 2 average foreigners. Transfer money which is not being filtered down to the lower leagues. The sooner they bring the foreign quota in the better. Even better would be a salary cap. I am sick of mercenaries kissing the badge one week, and going on strike for a move the next. Edited 6 September, 2008 by Wade Garrett I am a f*ckwit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 6 September, 2008 Share Posted 6 September, 2008 For every decent player in the Prem, there are at least 2 average foreigners. Transfer money which is not being filtered down to the lower leagues. The sooner they bring the foreign quota in the better. Even better would be a salary cap. I am sick of mercenaries kissing the badge one week, and going on strike for a move the next. but you said, how many are english/british.. if we are counting british, then add giggs and fletcher to the list.. the two best teams in the country and the two champions league finalists could almost field the england team.. dont forget, terry and lampard were voted top defender and top midfielder in europe too... also, it is not about what will happen in 5 years, the problem is now, and putting a pool of very good players into an efficient england team when you look at the standard of the U21's you cant help but think that the future of the pull through of england players will be OK!! as for mercenaries kissing the badge?? apart from THIS SEASON, arent we all guilty of cheering such players???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Shot Posted 6 September, 2008 Share Posted 6 September, 2008 Although I am a firm believer in the manager having a strategy which the board supports (rather than vice versa), whichever the scenario surely all the manager has to do is identify that he needs, for example, the best left-back available and that he is thinking of Cole or Bridge. The Chairman/DoF/FD/CEO then comes back and says, OK, we have found Gareth Bale. And they all agree that's fine. The problem only arises when the manager builds his team around certain key players and they are pulled from him without his knowledge, surely? I agree. I don't think any manager wants to get involved in the financial aspects of ingoing or outgoing financial negotiations but all would like a big input in selecting who is targeted or offered for sale. In 1957 Saints and Ted Bates took a youth side to Old Trafford to play the Busby Babes in a FA Youth Cup-tie. Saints won 3-2 and afterwards a complimentary Busby sought out Ted Bates to congratulate him. Ted always remembered one piece of advice about directors from Busby "let them have their say and then do what you want". Not many managers would get away with that today - and certainly not JP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 6 September, 2008 Share Posted 6 September, 2008 Well I, for one, am pleased that bung taking deceitful money grabbing twitchy b*stards are on their way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 6 September, 2008 Share Posted 6 September, 2008 but you said, how many are english/british.. if we are counting british, then add giggs and fletcher to the list.. the two best teams in the country and the two champions league finalists could almost field the england team.. dont forget, terry and lampard were voted top defender and top midfielder in europe too... also, it is not about what will happen in 5 years, the problem is now, and putting a pool of very good players into an efficient england team when you look at the standard of the U21's you cant help but think that the future of the pull through of england players will be OK!! as for mercenaries kissing the badge?? apart from THIS SEASON, arent we all guilty of cheering such players???? Sorry delldays. I meant for every decent foreign player at the start of my post. I do not consider anyone British to be foreign either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 6 September, 2008 Share Posted 6 September, 2008 Football was on its knees. Grounds were empty (with or without seats) and the game was dying. Sky came in an delivered the kind of players who would never previously have been attracted to England and helped improve the game immeasurably. For a long time, the game benefitted tremendously from the increased revenues and the improvements in safety and amenities etc. Call them sanitised grounds if you like (and I love Loftus Road). Where football went wrong - was the Bosman ruling. Which is one of those laws, like most, which has 'unintended consequences'... Those being that football clubs earn money simply to spunk it away on players and not reinvest it in their clubs. SKY came in and decreed that 99.9% of the MONEY went on Prem Clubs Just ask the likes of Accrington, Halifax, Wrexham, exactly what SKY have done for them. The Money Distribution within the UK Football structure is far far too Top Heavy That, coupled with ridiculously astronomical Players "salary's", and yet more and more Foreign players, makes a complete mockery of the "ENGLISH" Premiership Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 6 September, 2008 Share Posted 6 September, 2008 SKY came in and decreed that 99.9% of the MONEY went on Prem Clubs Just ask the likes of Accrington, Halifax, Wrexham, exactly what SKY have done for them. The Money Distribution within the UK Football structure is far far too Top Heavy That, coupled with ridiculously astronomical Players "salary's", and yet more and more Foreign players, makes a complete mockery of the "ENGLISH" Premiership isnt everything in life "top heavy".. may i suggest you move to the great communist states of this world if you want an equal playing field.. N.Korea China Cuba take your pick.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 6 September, 2008 Share Posted 6 September, 2008 SKY came in and decreed that 99.9% of the MONEY went on Prem Clubs Just ask the likes of Accrington, Halifax, Wrexham, exactly what SKY have done for them. The Money Distribution within the UK Football structure is far far too Top Heavy That, coupled with ridiculously astronomical Players "salary's", and yet more and more Foreign players, makes a complete mockery of the "ENGLISH" Premiership SKY bought the rights to screen the FA Premier League. The FA runs the Premier League (the clue being in the name) so it is the FA who decide where the money goes in conjunction with the members of the Premier League. In the same way SKY bought the rights to screen cricket, it is up to the ECB where the money goes. People seem to misunderstand how this works. The rights holder sells the media/broadcast rights to their sport to WHICHEVER bidder they choose and then do whatever they like with the cash. If you sell me a car and then spend the money getting sky-high on a ****tail of drink and drugs, am I a pusher???!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 6 September, 2008 Share Posted 6 September, 2008 ok...take the two best teams in england..man utd and chelsea....the two finalists of the champions league, which is regarded as the biggest prize in club football... then count how many regularly play in those two team who are english.. wes brown rio ferdinand owen hargreaves michael carrick paul scholes wayne rooney gary neville (when fit) ashley cole john terry wayne bridge frank lampard joe cole we do have very good players..probably too many and manager after manager for england seem to be obsessed in trying to play them all... now, whether the players care if they play for england is a whole different arguement... DD, I suspect that if you put those together into one team they would not win anything - that is what their past record suggests. Take some key foreigners out and I suspect you find that neither Man U nor Chelsea would be remotely invincible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 take key foreigners out of madrid, barcelona, milan, juve, bayern and they wont be that good either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 take key foreigners out of madrid, barcelona, milan, juve, bayern and they wont be that good either...devils advocate for the working class, gheydays you may be gay butnyou're also f*ckin iratating, get off your soapbox. NOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 devils advocate for the working class, gheydays you may be gay butnyou're also f*ckin iratating, get off your soapbox. NOW. oh, someone is still half cut.... you won much at the bookies lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 SKY came in and decreed that 99.9% of the MONEY went on Prem Clubs Just ask the likes of Accrington, Halifax, Wrexham, exactly what SKY have done for them. The Money Distribution within the UK Football structure is far far too Top Heavy That, coupled with ridiculously astronomical Players "salary's", and yet more and more Foreign players, makes a complete mockery of the "ENGLISH" Premiership Hang on a minute - don't you bleat on and on at every opportunity about how we never got "investment" while we were in the Prem? By investment, I believed you were referring to MONEY which in turn you wanted to help pay the "ridiculous astronomical salaries" etc etc you are moaning about above. So what exactly do you want, or do you just want to whinge about everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 SKY bought the rights to screen the FA Premier League. The FA runs the Premier League (the clue being in the name) so it is the FA who decide where the money goes in conjunction with the members of the Premier League. The FA does not run the Premier League!!!!!!!!!! The Premier League is run by a board of Directors who are appointed by the 20 shareholders (i.e. the Premier League Clubs). Effectively the Clubs run the League themselves through appointed Directors and an Executive team. The FA are a special shareholder with a right of veto on issues such as promotion, relegation and other areas, but they have no influence on the commercial aspects of the Premier League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 The FA does not run the Premier League!!!!!!!!!! The Premier League is run by a board of Directors who are appointed by the 20 shareholders (i.e. the Premier League Clubs). Effectively the Clubs run the League themselves through appointed Directors and an Executive team. The FA are a special shareholder with a right of veto on issues such as promotion, relegation and other areas, but they have no influence on the commercial aspects of the Premier League. Aye, but if the FA sanctioned its existence, they can hardly complain now about its funding or the distribution of cash injected into the sport, can they? That's the point. SKY are taking flack for giving too much money to the Premier League at the exclusion of the rest of us - well that's not Sky's fault, that's the FA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 and that is the truth of it!!! Don't forget that on OhWhenTheSaints you can post unlimited comments, gamble £1000 on Saints without it costing you a penny, try for the Post of the Week award and view the Picture Gallery......and its all free!! http://ohwhenthesaints.forumotion.net/forum.htm Fantastic, thanks for the link, now us TSW'ers can get back to a real life - we can make a post, go away and work for the day and come back 24 hours later to see the reply... How many posts a day they get? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 Aye, but if the FA sanctioned its existence, they can hardly complain now about its funding or the distribution of cash injected into the sport, can they? That's the point. SKY are taking flack for giving too much money to the Premier League at the exclusion of the rest of us - well that's not Sky's fault, that's the FA's. The FA have nothing to do with this. They were powerless as the old First Division clubs simply resigned from the Football League in the early 90's and set up the Premiership. They had no choice but to sanction it, the Clubs have all the power. The power lies with the Premiership Clubs, and within that the big 4 or maybe 5 are the real power barons. The big clubs know they could earn more if they sold their rights individually, so therefore the lesser clubs often defer to their way of thinking just to ensure the collective agreement remains. In a way this acceptance of the collective bundle is the big 4's way of saying they are doing something for the game (i.e. accepting less than they may otherwise get - although there are rumblings that two or three of the big four are looking to go alone at some point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 The FA have nothing to do with this. They were powerless as the old First Division clubs simply resigned from the Football League in the early 90's and set up the Premiership. They had no choice but to sanction it, the Clubs have all the power. The power lies with the Premiership Clubs, and within that the big 4 or maybe 5 are the real power barons. The big clubs know they could earn more if they sold their rights individually, so therefore the lesser clubs often defer to their way of thinking just to ensure the collective agreement remains. In a way this acceptance of the collective bundle is the big 4's way of saying they are doing something for the game (i.e. accepting less than they may otherwise get - although there are rumblings that two or three of the big four are looking to go alone at some point). I agree that the clubs have the power, but that remains the fault of the FA for not governing effectively. They weren't powerless, they were impotent because the clubs had all the commercial knowledge and brains and the FA rolled over and allowed the bigger clubs to dictate terms. They (the FA) were complicit in the formation of the Premier League because they had not sought the best commercial prospects for the sport. It is typical of sports governing bodies who claim powerlessness but haven't created the enviroment or circumstances to cater for all their members. While I don't know the specifics of their legislation or constitution, I'm sure they could have: withdrawn refereeing support, removed the ability to compete in FA competions, simply refused to reognise the legitimacy of the new league, etc. The FA must have believed that the Premier League would benefit the sport. They pandered to the big clubs knowing that those clubs can sell their rights to the highest bidder, but let the clubs try and sell the rights to play each other and see how they get on in an unrecognised league with their own constitution... It's like F1. The big teams always talk about 'breaking away' but never will while the governing body is so effective at selling and managing its rights. This is something where the FA were hapless at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 They (the FA) were complicit in the formation of the Premier League because they had not sought the best commercial prospects for the sport. The FA had no part in seeking the best comercial prospects for the Football League (in pre Premiership days). Just as the Premiership runs itself nowadays, so did the Footbal League before it. It is typical of sports governing bodies who claim powerlessness but haven't created the enviroment or circumstances to cater for all their members. While I don't know the specifics of their legislation or constitution, I'm sure they could have: withdrawn refereeing support, removed the ability to compete in FA competions, simply refused to reognise the legitimacy of the new league, etc. They could have refused to sanction the move, but it would have happened anyway. The clubs had all the power and if the FA had not agreed, then English football would probably have fallen apart. They would have still formed the Premier League and the repercussions for the FA and the rest of the game would have been massive. The simple fact is that although they need to work together at times, the FA needs the Premier League more than the other way round. It's like F1. The big teams always talk about 'breaking away' but never will while the governing body is so effective at selling and managing its rights. This is something where the FA were hapless at best. But this is where you're confusing yourself again. The FA were never in the game of negotiating and managing the rights of the Football League. The Football League negotiated these rights. The top teams (including us at the time) thought they could get a better deal by going it alone from the Footbal League, hence the mass resignations. Maybe the Football League were hapless at managing the rights, but certainly not the FA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 The FA had no part in seeking the best comercial prospects for the Football League (in pre Premiership days). Just as the Premiership runs itself nowadays, so did the Footbal League before it. They could have refused to sanction the move, but it would have happened anyway. The clubs had all the power and if the FA had not agreed, then English football would probably have fallen apart. They would have still formed the Premier League and the repercussions for the FA and the rest of the game would have been massive. The simple fact is that although they need to work together at times, the FA needs the Premier League more than the other way round. But this is where you're confusing yourself again. The FA were never in the game of negotiating and managing the rights of the Football League. The Football League negotiated these rights. The top teams (including us at the time) thought they could get a better deal by going it alone from the Footbal League, hence the mass resignations. Maybe the Football League were hapless at managing the rights, but certainly not the FA! At some point in time, the governing body gave up its rights to negotiate and manage the commercial rights to its product - when that was, who knows. My point is, you cannot blame SKY for buying what is available. It is the fault of the sport, not SKY that the money is not distibuted correctly, but thanks for the lesson in the history of football... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 The only chance we have of sanity returning to football is if Platini gets his own way. He sees clubs who prosper while running up larger debts as cheats. I agree with him on this. Something has to be done, it's getting sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 At some point in time, the governing body gave up its rights to negotiate and manage the commercial rights to its product - when that was, who knows. Not correct. The FA never had the rights to negoitate and manage the commercial rights of the product. The rights for the Football League (in whatever guise dating back to the 1880's) were always the responsibility of the League itelf (and it's members) and nothing to do with the FA. My point is, you cannot blame SKY for buying what is available. It is the fault of the sport, not SKY that the money is not distibuted correctly, I agree we can't blame SKY for how money is distributed throughout the game, although I would have thought that as the ultimate customer and paymaster they do have a view on the competitiveness of the league (and the pyramid system) and it's attraciveness to punters. It is totally up to the Clubs in the top flight to decide how the money is distributed throughout the game and with many of them (including ourselves when we were there) it is probably akin to xmas, voting and turkeys in trying to get them to pas on more to the teams below them. but thanks for the lesson in the history of football... It's just that the FA get enough stick without being blamed for the ills of the Premiership gravy train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 Not correct. The FA never had the rights to negoitate and manage the commercial rights of the product. The rights for the Football League (in whatever guise dating back to the 1880's) were always the responsibility of the League itelf (and it's members) and nothing to do with the FA. I agree we can't blame SKY for how money is distributed throughout the game, although I would have thought that as the ultimate customer and paymaster they do have a view on the competitiveness of the league (and the pyramid system) and it's attraciveness to punters. It is totally up to the Clubs in the top flight to decide how the money is distributed throughout the game and with many of them (including ourselves when we were there) it is probably akin to xmas, voting and turkeys in trying to get them to pas on more to the teams below them. It's just that the FA get enough stick without being blamed for the ills of the Premiership gravy train. Fair enough! I'm not here to denegrate the FA, simply to stick up for SKY who can't be blamed for who takes the cash!! It is madness though that the FA as a governing body do not have a say in how income generated from the sport which they govern is then used within the sport. At some point they could/should have sought to wrest this control from the league (and probably still should). But perhaps time for people to admit that WE are responsible for us having no cash, since we were part of the gravy train!! Which is a salutory lesson not to eat to heartily when your nose is in the trough!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 7 September, 2008 Share Posted 7 September, 2008 Its simple really.Harry doesn't like it as if he can't do the deal then the crooked bastard can't get his brown paper envelope. Tough ****e you saggy faced ****. Agreed! 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