A Night with the Rams this week

[Srg]

Rams in Focus is out...

 

and my question is on it.

[Guest]

Saw on one of the club videos that the changing rooms are sponsored too.

I was in changing rooms last week, they are falling to pieces, there are holes in roof and my nephew leant on a cupboard door and it fell off.

[davenportram]

I was in changing rooms last week, they are falling to pieces, there are holes in roof and my nephew leant on a cupboard door and it fell off.

Champagne corks after Brighton - hell of a party

[ramblur]

Yes I saw that - it's just a rough figure, I was trying to give something a bit more precise.  Especially as the source is the guardian which grossly misstated the TV rights deal initially.

 

 

 

As far I'm aware all these monies go to the clubs - I haven't seen anything that suggests the league take a slice.

 

Anyway the final figure that I come up with is £4.451m.  I can show workings if anyone wants it.

Did you arrive at your figure by dividing a global sum by 24 and then adding this to the Prem figure for each club,Martyn? I only ask because if you did,given that your figure coincides with what we got in 12/13,it strongly indicates that number of tv appearances has no effect on payout,which I would find a little odd, as cameras impact attendances.

 

Must admit I'd always thought that appearances increased payout and we actually got £4.963m in 11/12,but thinking about it,somewhere along the line we had a televised cup game (Brum?).

 

Apologies to Dimmu-when I answered your question it seemed to me you were asking how much we got when televised,and I didn't have a clue.It appears now that the answer could be zilch.If ,on the other hand, you meant overall,then Martyn's figure appears to be correct. 

[davenportram]

11/12 we played Shrewsbury, palace and stoke in the cup. Can't remember if any were televised though.

[ramblur]

11/12 we played Shrewsbury, palace and stoke in the cup. Can't remember if any were televised though.

Hmm, the plot thickens.In 10/11 tv income was over £5m,but I know that at some stage it did reduce because someone pulled out (BBC/ITV ?).Perhaps 11/12 was the last remnant of the better deal ,as the difference of £500k between this and 12/13 looks a bit high for an early round televised cup game.I know we had a home televised cup game against Prem opposition because I watched bits of it on a stream and had my usual problems-having lost the stream and thinking we had a draw,SSN (which I had on in tandem) announced a goal.Something in my head says it was Brum. I know the air was thick with swear words.

[ilkleyram]

Did you arrive at your figure by dividing a global sum by 24 and then adding this to the Prem figure for each club,Martyn? I only ask because if you did,given that your figure coincides with what we got in 12/13,it strongly indicates that number of tv appearances has no effect on payout,which I would find a little odd, as cameras impact attendances.

 

Must admit I'd always thought that appearances increased payout and we actually got £4.963m in 11/12,but thinking about it,somewhere along the line we had a televised cup game (Brum?).

 

Apologies to Dimmu-when I answered your question it seemed to me you were asking how much we got when televised,and I didn't have a clue.It appears now that the answer could be zilch.If ,on the other hand, you meant overall,then Martyn's figure appears to be correct. 

Have no idea whether this is right or not but I always thought that the basic principle of the TV money was that all clubs in the leagues got a share of the total, with Championship getting more than Div 1 who get more than Div 2 etc, but that a percentage was held back to pay those clubs actually televised on the basis that gates at televised matches were lower (because it was on TV and because KO times were messed around).  So if you are on TV more then you get more money.

 

Clubs on TV a lot also benefit because they can sell advertising at enhanced rates

[ramblur]

Have no idea whether this is right or not but I always thought that the basic principle of the TV money was that all clubs in the leagues got a share of the total, with Championship getting more than Div 1 who get more than Div 2 etc, but that a percentage was held back to pay those clubs actually televised on the basis that gates at televised matches were lower (because it was on TV and because KO times were messed around).  So if you are on TV more then you get more money.

 

Clubs on TV a lot also benefit because they can sell advertising at enhanced rates

Understand what you're saying and it seems reasonable.My problem is that the figure Martyn came up with exactly matches the amount we got in 12/13,so either we weren't televised in 12/13 (unlikely) or something's wrong somewhere,which is why I'm keen to see how Martyn came to his figure.

[Dimmu]

Apologies to Dimmu-when I answered your question it seemed to me you were asking how much we got when televised,and I didn't have a clue.It appears now that the answer could be zilch.If ,on the other hand, you meant overall,then Martyn's figure appears to be correct. 

You were right, I was asking it.

 

Since then this conversation has grown a bit...

[ilkleyram]

this explains the £195m figure - and an overall reduction in TV money

 

UK Television[edit]

From 2009 to 2012 Sky Sports had the rights to broadcast 65 live matches, live coverage of both legs of both play-off semi finals and the play-off final live.^[10] The BBC has the rights to show 10 first choice live games for the regular season as well as the rights to show a highlight show. The deal is on a three-year contract and is worth £264m that will mostly be paid by Sky.^[11] Sky Sports will then take exclusive live rights to the Football League from 2013, having signed a three-year deal worth £195m, representing a 26% reduction in revenue from the previous joint deal between Sky and BBC.^[12] The new deal will include 75 live league games, all the play-off matches, 15 League Cup ties (including both semi-finals and the final) and selected Johnstone's Paint Trophy matches. Sky will also have highlights packages, with the free-to-air rights yet to be decided.

[ShaunTheRam]

Ramblur,

 

Just listened back to what Sam said on the wage bill - his comment was that in terms of the percentage of overall wages made up of players on the pitch, ours is one of the highest. He went on to say that "some other clubs have big problems there in that they have plenty of guys on the wage bill that don't play".

[Martyn]

Congratulations Martyn,that's the exact figure that appears in the 12/13 accounts,and which I've been using in calculations.

 

Oh ****!  I have the accounts and never even thought of looking in there!  It was a good exercise though, as it looks like I've now got the exact calculation that is used - but I'm pretty staggered that it matched exactly!

[Martyn]

Ok, I'll try to wrap-up all replies into one post...

 

 

Hmm, the plot thickens.In 10/11 tv income was over £5m,but I know that at some stage it did reduce because someone pulled out (BBC/ITV ?).Perhaps 11/12 was the last remnant of the better deal,as the difference of £500k between this and 12/13 looks a bit high for an early round televised cup game.

 

I'll just cover this off first - yes, that's right the £264m deal ran from 2009/10 - 2011/12, the £195m runs from 2012/13 - 2014/15

 

 

Did you arrive at your figure by dividing a global sum by 24 and then adding this to the Prem figure for each club,Martyn? I only ask because if you did,given that your figure coincides with what we got in 12/13,it strongly indicates that number of tv appearances has no effect on payout,which I would find a little odd, as cameras impact attendances.

 

Must admit I'd always thought that appearances increased payout and we actually got £4.963m in 11/12,but thinking about it,somewhere along the line we had a televised cup game (Brum?).

 

Apologies to Dimmu-when I answered your question it seemed to me you were asking how much we got when televised,and I didn't have a clue.It appears now that the answer could be zilch.If ,on the other hand, you meant overall,then Martyn's figure appears to be correct. 

 

...

 

Have no idea whether this is right or not but I always thought that the basic principle of the TV money was that all clubs in the leagues got a share of the total, with Championship getting more than Div 1 who get more than Div 2 etc, but that a percentage was held back to pay those clubs actually televised on the basis that gates at televised matches were lower (because it was on TV and because KO times were messed around).

 

...

 

 

Understand what you're saying and it seems reasonable.My problem is that the figure Martyn came up with exactly matches the amount we got in 12/13,so either we weren't televised in 12/13 (unlikely) or some thing's wrong somewhere,which is why I'm keen to see how Martyn came to his figure.

 

Right this is all a bit of a quandary.  I believe we've always been under the impression clubs get additional money when they appear on live on TV - especially the home team ("facilities fees" and all that) but this isn't borne out by our "TV receipts" for 2012/13 as my figure was calculated purely from the overall TV deal being split between all clubs equally.

 

I can see two possible reasons for this - 1. We don't any additional money for live games, or 2. We allocate that money under a different heading in the accounts - "match receipts" or "other receipts" maybe, I can't see how it would fit into "Commercial activities" or anywhere else?

 

So that leaves the calculation itself...

 

So the FL gets a total of £195m over three years.  The first thing we need to do is split this between the 3 divisions.  I'd never heard how this split was done until last week so I'd always just /3.  Then I found this, which gives the proportions of the split between the divisions as it was under the old deal.

 

Helpfully he gives the source as the FL regulations, but sadly, the it looks like the document has now changed and it no longer gives this detail.  But as it seems to match perfectly I think we can trust it.

 

So the split is done with banding, so it's just like calculating your tax (oh joy...).

 

Band 1 - £33m - Championship gets 59.6% = £19.668

Band 2 - £34m - Ch. gets 80% = £27.200

Band 3 - the remainder... £128m - Ch. gets 90% = £115.200

 

So the total (3yr) Championship revenue is £162.068m

 

Then simply £54.023m per year.

And £2.251m per year per club.

 

Plus £2.200m Premier League Solidarity Payment.

 

Equals £4.451m TV revenue annually for the club.

 

[ilkleyram]

Well done Martyn

 

Three comments:

1) I looked in the Football League regulations too and couldn't find anything that described the method of distribution of TV money

2) I thought that the £195m referred to the Sky deal only, but we know that BBC show a highlights package too, for which they must pay somebody something.  It would be strange if they only paid money to Sky and not the FL, but perhaps that's so because in theory it's additional to the £195m.

3) Perhaps the argument goes that the more a club is on TV the more commercial rights they can sell at a higher price - pitch side advertising, corner flags, back of the shirt/shorts, substitutions and all the other commercial malarky - so therefore an equal split between all clubs in a league is fair.  You only really benefit if you are at home and on TV, mind.  

[ramblur]

Thanks Martyn,I've a fuzzy head and replying to sage's post has about finished me off,so will return to it when feeling better.I noticed the blogger gave appearance fees of £100k for home team and £10k for away team,and also talks of additional payments in respect of overseas rights.For some reason he seems to have got the basic figure for the new deal lower than your own,though your figures seem to be ok.Every site I've looked at gave the solidarity payment as £2.3m.

 

I can see no reason why appearance money would go to an income head other than tv income.

[Martyn]

Well done Martyn

 

Three comments:

1) I looked in the Football League regulations too and couldn't find anything that described the method of distribution of TV money

2) I thought that the £195m referred to the Sky deal only, but we know that BBC show a highlights package too, for which they must pay somebody something.  It would be strange if they only paid money to Sky and not the FL, but perhaps that's so because in theory it's additional to the £195m.

3) Perhaps the argument goes that the more a club is on TV the more commercial rights they can sell at a higher price - pitch side advertising, corner flags, back of the shirt/shorts, substitutions and all the other commercial malarky - so therefore an equal split between all clubs in a league is fair.  You only really benefit if you are at home and on TV, mind.  

 

1. The blog clearly referenced it and it appears to be accurate so I can only imagine it was removed in a later revision (at least publicly?).

 

2. Pretty sure the Sky/BBC deal is struck "as one" so only one figure.

 

3. Certainly possible, it's just strange how in the past you hear people (including club representatives) refer to additional money from live games.

[Martyn]

Thanks Martyn,I've a fuzzy head and replying to sage's post has about finished me off,so will return to it when feeling better.I noticed the blogger gave appearance fees of £100k for home team and £10k for away team,and also talks of additional payments in respect of overseas rights.For some reason he seems to have got the basic figure for the new deal lower than your own,though your figures seem to be ok.Every site I've looked at gave the solidarity payment as £2.3m.

 

I can see no reason why appearance money would go to an income head other than tv income.

 

Yes it's all a big strange, I never expected it to match like that - where are these add-ons???

 

When I first read his post I saw how far out his numbers were, I think he just totally messed up in the mathematics dept!

 

I only ever saw the Solidarity payment reported as either £2.2m or £2m, where I assumed £2m was a journo just being rough with the figures.  Do you have a link to a reference of £2.3m?

 

Hope your health's ok, take it easy RB.

[ramblur]

Yes it's all a big strange, I never expected it to match like that - where are these add-ons???

 

When I first read his post I saw how far out his numbers were, I think he just totally messed up in the mathematics dept!

 

I only ever saw the Solidarity payment reported as either £2.2m or £2m, where I assumed £2m was a journo just being rough with the figures.  Do you have a link to a reference of £2.3m?

 

Hope your health's ok, take it easy RB.

Having looked at it again,Martyn,I'm afraid it was you who made the mistake.The bands are for the annual revenue figures,not for the overall deal,thus you should have worked out the figures based on £65m per annum  and divided by 24.Your figure agreeing with the accounts must just have been one of life's great coincidences,but at least appearances and overseas rights can now fit into the figure (which I can't be bothered to calculate).As far as overseas rights go,these seem to increase year on year,so you couldn't predict a global 3 year figure.

 

I'm afraid I didn't bookmark the solidarity links,but I think I threw "Premiership solidarity payments to championship clubs" into Google.What I would say is that the £2.3m quoted appeared to be the proposed figure shortly prior to rubber stamping.

[Martyn]

Having looked at it again,Martyn,I'm afraid it was you who made the mistake.The bands are for the annual revenue figures,not for the overall deal,thus you should have worked out the figures based on £65m per annum  and divided by 24.Your figure agreeing with the accounts must just have been one of life's great coincidences,but at least appearances and overseas rights can now fit into the figure (which I can't be bothered to calculate).As far as overseas rights go,these seem to increase year on year,so you couldn't predict a global 3 year figure.

 

I'm afraid I didn't bookmark the solidarity links,but I think I threw "Premiership solidarity payments to championship clubs" into Google.What I would say is that the £2.3m quoted appeared to be the proposed figure shortly prior to rubber stamping.

 

Thanks ramblur, can you point me to where it says that?  On that basis the new figure is £4.086m (still using 2.2m as solidarity), so that gives us £400k or so for additional payments.

If my effort was a fluke that was one hell of a coincidence!

[ramblur]

Thanks ramblur, can you point me to where it says that?  On that basis the new figure is £4.086m (still using 2.2m as solidarity), so that gives us £400k or so for additional payments.

If my effort was a fluke that was one hell of a coincidence!

Sentence before the Football League link that the blogger gives.

 

Add on the £250k for overseas rights that Fred Bloggs calculated and you're fairly close to the figure in 12/13 accounts,with just enough leeway for our own televised games in that year.