PL big six about to get richer?

[doddisalegend]

The Premier League’s six richest clubs are facing stubborn resistance against their efforts to seek a greater share of income from the next multibillion‑pound round of TV deals.

 

http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=BDIGeneric&aid=C98EA5B0842DBB9405BBF071E1DA7651530FFE51&tid=9E0E00E2087E47FCAB0D407AB2013157&url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2ffootball%2f2017%2fsep%2f27%2fpremier-league-clubs-block-big-six-tv-cash&c=7022519565473308022&mkt=en-gb

 

That the PL seem to support the idea suggests they don't want a competitive league and are more worried about the big six running of to form a European super league.

[Matthew Le God]

[h=2]PL big six about to get richer?[/h]

 

No

 

Not unless some of the other clubs change their minds. The "big 6" plus Leicester, West Ham & Everton want the change... the other 11 don't.

 

You need 14 in favour to get a PL change (as they only have 9 clubs). That doesn't look like happening as things stand!

[alpine_saint]

No

 

Not unless some of the other clubs change their minds. The "big 6" plus Leicester, West Ham & Everton want the change... the other 11 don't.

 

You need 14 in favour to get a PL change (as they only have 9 clubs). That doesn't look like happening as things stand!

 

This. F**k 'em.

[CB Fry]

In principle they're right because the international viewers aren't tuning in to watch (and the international TV companies aren't paying to have the rights to) Burnley and West Brom and us.

[aintforever]

I would happily see them **** off and join a European super league.

[doddisalegend]

In principle they're right because the international viewers aren't tuning in to watch (and the international TV companies aren't paying to have the rights to) Burnley and West Brom and us.

 

 

On that basis it would be better if the big six just sodded off and started their own little league where they can all play each other 4 times a season in places like Dubai, L.A. and Seoul.

[Micky]

I would happily see them **** off and join a European super league.

 

This.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

I would happily see them **** off and join a European super league.

 

Yep and we could see Liverpool at the bottom every year

[Charlie Wayman]

When this move fails as it will don't be surprised if the other hoary old chestnut raises its *****ly head again, reducing the number of teams in the PL.

 

You can almost place a bet on the likelihood of lobbying for a league of 16 or even 12 clubs to "ease pressure on the clubs that play in europe etc etc", cover of course for dividing the TV cash amongst fewer clubs so that the big boys get what they want anyway (more of the cash) by another route. These people are anti-football and the status quo isn't going to last much longer.

[alpine_saint]

When this move fails as it will don't be surprised if the other hoary old chestnut raises its *****ly head again, reducing the number of teams in the PL.

 

You can almost place a bet on the likelihood of lobbying for a league of 16 or even 12 clubs to "ease pressure on the clubs that play in europe etc etc", cover of course for dividing the TV cash amongst fewer clubs so that the big boys get what they want anyway (more of the cash) by another route. These people are anti-football and the status quo isn't going to last much longer.

 

Then it will be turkeys voting for Xmas.

 

Look at how sh*t the SPL is nowadays

[farawaysaint]

In principle they're right because the international viewers aren't tuning in to watch (and the international TV companies aren't paying to have the rights to) Burnley and West Brom and us.

 

Yet I bet they loved watching Leicester... Stories like that will be that much harder if we chuck more money at the big teams.

 

The Hammers always seem to support initiatives like this, I'm struggling to see why the Golds believe West-Ham will do so well.

[Graffito]

In principle they're right because the international viewers aren't tuning in to watch (and the international TV companies aren't paying to have the rights to) Burnley and West Brom and us.

 

That's an economic rationale (and one I would argue is based fundamentally on greed since all clubs were happy to agree to the principle of equal share when foreign revenues were small). Having a competitive league may be a stronger economic argument in support of retaining equal shares, at least in the medium to long term.

 

Above and beyond that, I feel we are valuing football in the wrong way if we see it only as having an economic value. I'm not saying to do btw.

[Saint-Fred]

In principle they're right because the international viewers aren't tuning in to watch (and the international TV companies aren't paying to have the rights to) Burnley and West Brom and us.

 

Yes but they need someone to play don't they? The global audience won't want to see Man U play Arsenal in a six team league every other week.

I hope they **** of to a European league...it will be funny watching some European Giants play in a league where they have no chance of achieving anything ever whilst the top 6 then say "we want a bigger share of the pot as no one wants to watch the relegation clash of Liverpool V Dortmond."

[Ekelund24]

I don't know why the Premier League don't have their own Network like the NFL, UFC, WWE or NBA and set it up Worldwide? They own the rights to every Premier League game ever and can make them available on demand. They can show the games on delay and have a Saturday afternoon program like Red Zone in the NFL. Granted it appeals more to the casual fan and is better suited to a franchise based league but there is extra money to be made especially from the International market.

[scotty]

Yes but they need someone to play don't they? The global audience won't want to see Man U play Arsenal in a six team league every other week.

I hope they **** of to a European league...it will be funny watching some European Giants play in a league where they have no chance of achieving anything ever whilst the top 6 then say "we want a bigger share of the pot as no one wants to watch the relegation clash of Liverpool V Dortmond."

 

That's the way I see it, plus the much-vaunted "global audience" don't tune in to watch their favourite team play games they are just as likely to draw or lose as they are to win. They pay to watch their branded club of choice win games, not get beaten.

[Pamplemousse]

I would happily see them **** off and join a European super league.

 

Yes please.

[Ohio Saint]

The ffp rules were not good enough to them?

[Dalek2003]

The Premier league is unique in its variety of clubs. Make it more exclusive and you kill the very essence of what makes it unique. It just becomes of the same all over the world.

[saintquin]

Without all the other clubs there wouldn't be a top 6.

The media make (to some extent) a club bigger by showing on the telly more than others. If Saints were on as much as liverpoop we would have a bigger following abroad than we do imo!

[simo]

So the richest clubs want to be richer and Spurs ,Wham and Leicester agree with them ? Talk about Turkey's voting for Xmas!

[CB Fry]

Yes but they need someone to play don't they? The global audience won't want to see Man U play Arsenal in a six team league every other week.

 

They do need someone to play, but they are utterly replaceable.

 

Say Forest, Leeds, Villa, Norwich, Derby, Ipswich, Wolves, Hull, Sunderland, Fulham.

 

Whip out the bottom half and replace with those clubs and absolutely no impact whatsoever on international audience or revenue (if anything would improve things based on better heritage of Leeds Villa and Forest).

 

Like it or not, the smaller clubs parasite off the bigger ones and get a pretty decent deal now from the international contracts. We'll see how long it lasts.

Edited 28 September, 2017 by CB Fry

[angelman]

CB, I know where you are coming from but it is the case that the sum of the parts are very very much less than the whole. The big boys tend to forget this in pursuit of EVEN more money, and it is likely to be the downfall of the whole thing.

[whelk]

What’s wrong with apportioning more to merit payments? So many defeatists - it is not giving it to the big 6 but those that finish higher. Clearly likely to be the same but our 6th 7th and 8th would have given us higher proportion than the relegation candidates.

[Dark Munster]

The big boys already make a mind-boggling amount more from marketing than provincial clubs like us, not to mention from the CL. And nothing wrong with that, but what they want now is pure greed. Yes they could argue that overseas viewers tune in primarily for them, but they should be content with their current massive income advantage.

[Kingsland Codger]

The news that significantly more viewers watched Cardiff play Leeds than saw Spurs or Manchester City play in the UCL might make some think again.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/more-viewers-watch-cardiff-than-spurs-or-man-city-mngdwn9nt

[CB Fry]

The news that significantly more viewers watched Cardiff play Leeds than saw Spurs or Manchester City play in the UCL might make some think again.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/more-viewers-watch-cardiff-than-spurs-or-man-city-mngdwn9nt

Murdoch newspaper in puff piece for Sky shock revelation. Sky never wanted European football really, honest they didn't.

 

UK viewing figures for two competitions that aren't the Premier League doesn't really have anything to do with international TV deals for the Premier League does it?

[tajjuk]

What the big clubs aren't getting though is one of the main reasons the premiership is so popular is because it is much more competitive than most of the European leagues, it isn't Bayern, Bayern, Bayern, Dortmund, Bayern or Juve, Juve, Juve, or Real Madrid and Barca every year.

 

The 'little teams', because they have money, beat the bigger teams and the league is not always that predictable. Burnley beating Chelsea at Stamford Bridge for example just wouldn't happen if the TV money wasn't shared equally.

 

Also all the other games would become meaningless, like in Spain where people just watch X team that gets stuffed by Barcelona this week, just had a quick check and Barca have lost 30 league games in the last 10 years (and a big proportion of those will be to the Madrid teams) and they have scored more than 100 goals in a league season for the last 6 seasons. Madrid have scored more than 100 league goals for the last 8 seasons and lost only 31 times in the league in the last 10 years.

 

In comparison Man Utd have lost 35 league games over the last 4 seasons, Chelsea have lost 33 in the last 5 and Man City 35 defeats in the last 5, and only twice in the last 10 years plus have any of those 3 teams scored more than 100 league goals.

 

Yeh sure them getting more money would make it easier for them, but the league would get weaker and people would stop watching, they'll end up getting less money.

[Gingeletiss]

What the big clubs aren't getting though is one of the main reasons the premiership is so popular is because it is much more competitive than most of the European leagues, it isn't Bayern, Bayern, Bayern, Dortmund, Bayern or Juve, Juve, Juve, or Real Madrid and Barca every year.

 

The 'little teams', because they have money, beat the bigger teams and the league is not always that predictable. Burnley beating Chelsea at Stamford Bridge for example just wouldn't happen if the TV money wasn't shared equally.

 

Also all the other games would become meaningless, like in Spain where people just watch X team that gets stuffed by Barcelona this week, just had a quick check and Barca have lost 30 league games in the last 10 years (and a big proportion of those will be to the Madrid teams) and they have scored more than 100 goals in a league season for the last 6 seasons. Madrid have scored more than 100 league goals for the last 8 seasons and lost only 31 times in the league in the last 10 years.

 

In comparison Man Utd have lost 35 league games over the last 4 seasons, Chelsea have lost 33 in the last 5 and Man City 35 defeats in the last 5, and only twice in the last 10 years plus have any of those 3 teams scored more than 100 league goals.

 

Yeh sure them getting more money would make it easier for them, but the league would get weaker and people would stop watching, they'll end up getting less money.

 

This forum needs a 'like' button..............^Like^

[Fan The Flames]

What the big clubs aren't getting though is one of the main reasons the premiership is so popular is because it is much more competitive than most of the European leagues, it isn't Bayern, Bayern, Bayern, Dortmund, Bayern or Juve, Juve, Juve, or Real Madrid and Barca every year.

 

The 'little teams', because they have money, beat the bigger teams and the league is not always that predictable. Burnley beating Chelsea at Stamford Bridge for example just wouldn't happen if the TV money wasn't shared equally.

 

Also all the other games would become meaningless, like in Spain where people just watch X team that gets stuffed by Barcelona this week, just had a quick check and Barca have lost 30 league games in the last 10 years (and a big proportion of those will be to the Madrid teams) and they have scored more than 100 goals in a league season for the last 6 seasons. Madrid have scored more than 100 league goals for the last 8 seasons and lost only 31 times in the league in the last 10 years.

 

In comparison Man Utd have lost 35 league games over the last 4 seasons, Chelsea have lost 33 in the last 5 and Man City 35 defeats in the last 5, and only twice in the last 10 years plus have any of those 3 teams scored more than 100 league goals.

 

Yeh sure them getting more money would make it easier for them, but the league would get weaker and people would stop watching, they'll end up getting less money.

 

You could argue that English big club losing rate which is double that of the Spain is because there are twice as many big clubs in England than Spain. But I take your point that there is more depth in England than Spain and this is part of the appeal of the Premier League.

[hutch]

What’s wrong with apportioning more to merit payments? So many defeatists - it is not giving it to the big 6 but those that finish higher. Clearly likely to be the same but our 6th 7th and 8th would have given us higher proportion than the relegation candidates.

The top clubs don't want more money for themselves, they want to stop the lower clubs from having it.

 

It's skewing the transfer market, allowing lower clubs to bid (and pay wages) for players they shouldn't.

[whelk]

The top clubs don't want more money for themselves, they want to stop the lower clubs from having it.

 

It's skewing the transfer market, allowing lower clubs to bid (and pay wages) for players they shouldn't.

 

So if the UK rights money was carved up in same.way it would be fairer to have Leicester when they won the league to receive the same share as Sunderland?

I like it the way it is as keeps it competitive but people seem to be getting bit excitable shouting breakaway league just coos change has been proposed. Big clubs have so much money anyway and can only have 25 or so players in their squads. Man Utd making more won’t give them any further advantage over us other than what they have already and will pick our players at will.

[CB Fry]

What the big clubs aren't getting though is one of the main reasons the premiership is so popular is because it is much more competitive than most of the European leagues, it isn't Bayern, Bayern, Bayern, Dortmund, Bayern or Juve, Juve, Juve, or Real Madrid and Barca every year.

 

The 'little teams', because they have money, beat the bigger teams and the league is not always that predictable. Burnley beating Chelsea at Stamford Bridge for example just wouldn't happen if the TV money wasn't shared equally.

 

Also all the other games would become meaningless, like in Spain where people just watch X team that gets stuffed by Barcelona this week, just had a quick check and Barca have lost 30 league games in the last 10 years (and a big proportion of those will be to the Madrid teams) and they have scored more than 100 goals in a league season for the last 6 seasons. Madrid have scored more than 100 league goals for the last 8 seasons and lost only 31 times in the league in the last 10 years.

 

In comparison Man Utd have lost 35 league games over the last 4 seasons, Chelsea have lost 33 in the last 5 and Man City 35 defeats in the last 5, and only twice in the last 10 years plus have any of those 3 teams scored more than 100 league goals.

 

Yeh sure them getting more money would make it easier for them, but the league would get weaker and people would stop watching, they'll end up getting less money.

Last season, in winning the league, Chelsea lost to Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Crystal Palace.

 

Spurs, in finishing second lost to Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool and then one loss to West Ham.

 

So a top 2 with one defeat each against non "big clubs". It's a bit of a myth really that the PL is some mega open league where anyone can beat anyone. Not really.

 

The main appeal, as they know, is the fact that we have 6 really big clubs who make the top end of the league competitive, they're the ones playing and beating each other.

 

The bottom ten clubs are completely replaceable and, in a global sense, irrelevant.

 

No one watches Formula 1 to see Force India, and in the PL, that's what "the rest" is.

Edited 30 September, 2017 by CB Fry

[alehouseboys]

Big clubs have so much money anyway and can only have 25 or so players in their squads. Man Utd making more won’t give them any further advantage over us other than what they have already and will pick our players at will.

 

And that's how the 'Top 6' probably could have further advantage over us as they'd just use the extra cash (they don't really need) to hoover up the better players of lower clubs to weaken still any threat and then, to get over the 25 player rule, just send them/other squad players out on loan to the continent. The league probably wouldn't look a lot different to today but there would be less chance of the big boys slipping up against 'the rest'.

[CB Fry]

And that's how the 'Top 6' probably could have further advantage over us as they'd just use the extra cash (they don't really need) to hoover up the better players of lower clubs to weaken still any threat and then, to get over the 25 player rule, just send them/other squad players out on loan to the continent. The league probably wouldn't look a lot different to today but there would be less chance of the big boys slipping up against 'the rest'.

Whelk's point is we are already there now, any changes won't really make much difference. They've got richer this summer and we still held on to VVD.

 

Its very difficult for nondescript Premier League clubs to put on the woe-is-us poverty routine when any bog standard Prem club has more spending power than the likes of PSV and Ajax and Napoli and Celtic and Porto and so on.

[Donatello]

Struggling to understand why any club outside of the big six would agree to this, save for Everton. Anyway, if I didn't think that this merit payment move would be the start of slippery slope for the rest of us (the 14), I wouldn't be so opposed to it, but I just can't see past it being the start of a slow erosion of distribution 'parity'. In conclusion, f*ck 'em, United will have to make-do with their soon to be ~£600m revenue.

[Graffito]

Whelk's point is we are already there now, any changes won't really make much difference. They've got richer this summer and we still held on to VVD.

 

Its very difficult for nondescript Premier League clubs to put on the woe-is-us poverty routine when any bog standard Prem club has more spending power than the likes of PSV and Ajax and Napoli and Celtic and Porto and so on.

 

If any changes (a greater share of foreign rights revenue based on league position i.e.effectively the big 6) won't make much difference, why are the big 6 so keen to have the extra income? It isn't for some principle. The foreign rights revenues are increasing or "burgeoning" as the article puts it. We haven't got there yet.

[CB Fry]

If any changes (a greater share of foreign rights revenue based on league position i.e.effectively the big 6) won't make much difference, why are the big 6 so keen to have the extra income? It isn't for some principle. The foreign rights revenues are increasing or "burgeoning" as the article puts it. We haven't got there yet.

What, you think they are trying to get more money to make it easier to sign players from West Bromich Albion and Burnley? You think that's the motivation? Seriously?

 

How about they want more money because all big businesses want more money. They want more money because there's a watertight case that they deserve it. And they want more money because it should, in theory, make them more competitive at elite European level.

 

But no, it won't make much difference to their relationship with the bottom ten clubs in the Premier League. As I've said previously, they are replaceable and irrelevant.

[OldNick]

What, you think they are trying to get more money to make it easier to sign players from West Bromich Albion and Burnley? You think that's the motivation? Seriously?

 

How about they want more money because all big businesses want more money. They want more money because there's a watertight case that they deserve it. And they want more money because it should, in theory, make them more competitive at elite European level.

 

But no, it won't make much difference to their relationship with the bottom ten clubs in the Premier League. As I've said previously, they are replaceable and irrelevant.

as the big 6 always have had the biggest income, the reason they are the big 6 is because they've always had the biggest revenue to crush the rest. Chelsea and Man City have only just come to the table due to wealthy owners of course.

Strachan said when with us,that you nearly get to compete with them and then they take your best players and we are back to square one

You have put up a good case for the big clubs to get more,but there is one thing to take into account,they signed the agreement.

[Dark Munster]

If any changes (a greater share of foreign rights revenue based on league position i.e.effectively the big 6) won't make much difference, why are the big 6 so keen to have the extra income? It isn't for some principle. The foreign rights revenues are increasing or "burgeoning" as the article puts it. We haven't got there yet.

They want more money for the same reason the 70-year old multi-billionaire Koch brothers want more money (who buy politicians to lower their tax rate and gut environmental regulations to increase their profits).

 

Greed.

[Graffito]

They want more money for the same reason the 70-year old multi-billionaire Koch brothers want more money (who buy politicians to lower their tax rate and gut environmental regulations to increase their profits).

 

Greed.

 

See post 12.

[Graffito]

What, you think they are trying to get more money to make it easier to sign players from West Bromich Albion and Burnley? You think that's the motivation? Seriously?

 

How about they want more money because all big businesses want more money. They want more money because there's a watertight case that they deserve it. And they want more money because it should, in theory, make them more competitive at elite European level.

 

But no, it won't make much difference to their relationship with the bottom ten clubs in the Premier League. As I've said previously, they are replaceable and irrelevant.

 

I can't even be bothered to answer this ********.

[VectisSaint]

Proposal for change rejected, for now at least.

[ericb]

Proposal for change rejected, for now at least.

 

The skates will put there's in ten years after everyone else then swear blind to anyone that listens that there's was the first and moooost pashooonatast, and that all the ultras in Eastern Europe based themselves on them.

[rooney]

Proposal for change rejected, for now at least.

 

They vote, proposal rejected, not what Scudamore wants so they are to review again. Democracy?

[alpine_saint]

They vote, proposal rejected, not what Scudamore wants so they are to review again. Democracy?

 

Democracy EU-style.

 

Anyway, according to the BBC, it didnt even get to a vote. The big 6 and Scudamore face an uphill battle with this one. If the big 6 do decide to breakaway, I will say "bye".

[doddisalegend]

Democracy EU-style.

 

Anyway, according to the BBC, it didnt even get to a vote. The big 6 and Scudamore face an uphill battle with this one. If the big 6 do decide to breakaway, I will say "bye".

 

That's the PLs biggest fear which is why they bend over backwards to keep them happy....just the mere mention of a breakaway league sends Scudmore in to palpitations.

[angelman]

I thought that Scudamore didn't want it???

 

Interesting though, that most fans who post views on this, are very anti even more money going to the big 6, even those supporters of the big 6. Greed seems to be the most common comment. Then they do not want a boring league of 6 vs the rest, which it already sort of it. I actually found it quite refreshing to read. Gary Neville another one who was very anti. In fact, apart from some club owners, I am not sure who is in favour of this. All I see is that there seems to be somewhat of a disconnect between clubs and supporters, not that that is really any sort of revelation.

 

And in all this, the one person I look at with the most disdain is Karen Brady, and then by extension, the D Bros. YTF are they voting for this?? They aren't a big club and often seem to be flirting more with relegation than the top half. They rip the heart out of an old club, flog off their home and become tenants in a soulless athletics stadium.

[mrfahaji]

Last season, in winning the league, Chelsea lost to Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Crystal Palace.

 

Spurs, in finishing second lost to Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool and then one loss to West Ham.

 

So a top 2 with one defeat each against non "big clubs". It's a bit of a myth really that the PL is some mega open league where anyone can beat anyone. Not really.

 

The main appeal, as they know, is the fact that we have 6 really big clubs who make the top end of the league competitive, they're the ones playing and beating each other.

 

The bottom ten clubs are completely replaceable and, in a global sense, irrelevant.

No one watches Formula 1 to see Force India, and in the PL, that's what "the rest" is.

 

I do! It'd be much more enjoyable to watch if now and again a Force India or Renault won, or nearly won a race. Sure, you want to have the big names there, but not to the extent every other team is irrelevant.

[aintforever]

There is no chance of the so called "big 6" breaking away to form a European League. For starters if UEFA decided to form a European Super League I expect only Man Utd and Liverpool would make it in anyway.

 

Teams like Chelsea and Man City are only up the top because they currently have rich owners - they could leave them tomorrow clubs like this could easily end up at the same level as clubs like Leeds, Aston Villa or Newcastle who could easily be "big 6" if they had a dumb rich Arab pouring money in.

[OldNick]

I do! It'd be much more enjoyable to watch if now and again a Force India or Renault won, or nearly won a race. Sure, you want to have the big names there, but not to the extent every other team is irrelevant.

But CB is correct, people are not interested in the also rans.

Even myself who should know better look at the Sky games on a sunday and see , Burnley v Newcastle or WBA I will probably gout. Wheras if it is Man U v Arsenal etc I will stay in to watch, even though the big games rarely live up to the expectation