Championship clubs breakaway league

[Tamworthram]

13 hours ago, 86 points said:

Wish you and a few others would stop bashing Londoners at every available opportunity. Boils my piss tbh. FYI, cockney is a term applied to East Londoners who lived in close enough proximity to St Mary-le-Bow Church in Cheapside as to be able to hear the church bells. So tell me, do you seriously believe that East London is a seething bed of Citeh fans? Really?!? I can tell you for a fact that if you do, you're wrong.

Apologies. Should have said Southerner rather than Cockney.

I have nothing against Londoners (or Southerners) just the stereotypical individuals that have adopted Man U as "their" club. Before you get upset again, I know and accept it's a lazy and boring stereotype.

interestingly, I seem to recall the posters handle (or whatever it's called now, I'm a bit behind the times) was Pat Butcher.

[Archied]

4 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

Sky can't afford to lose the Championship while they haven't got champions league rights. They charge a fortune for Sky Sports Football and already we're unable to watch some of the bigger games unless we have BT Sports as well.

I'm not sexist, I'm not but their sports main event last weekend was women's international cricket. This weekend, women's Rugby.

I understand the sports need to embrace women's teams and I'm sure the audience will grow as standards improve and number of people interested increase but christ on a bike, the stadium itself was totally empty, no bugger wanted to go and watch the game live never mind have it as Saturday evening's main event.

I honestly feel we're being force fed women's sport and no-one dares speak out due to equality issues. I'm aware I'll be alienating the female posters here but if anyone wants to boost women's sports get up off your arse and go to watch them live. Increased attendances = increased exposure = increased sponsorship = more money = better standards.

Sky Sports, I pay £75 quid a month and I rarely watch a Premier League game, I subscribed while Burton were in the Championship and now it's only Derby and Forest that keep me hanging around at all. if they lost the EFL as well, what's the point.

I'd be keen to have a look in 12 months when they've had time to work out how much "the red button" games have cost clubs in revenue.

Ok I’m probably going to get painted as sexist too but it has been a bugbear of mine for a while that we are being force fed women’s boxing ,,,women’s boxing is fine if you want to watch/ support it then fair play but I don’t ,yet every other pay per view event/ fight I buy has to now have a bloody woman’s bout on the undercard ,

why ???   Put women’s boxing on pay per view as a stand alone event and give people the choice ,I m willing to bet the market for it will be next to nothing and that’s why it’s being foisted on us in this way 

[Ellafella]

On 12/11/2018 at 17:53, GenBr said:

After reading the article the Football league dont seem too concerned, which seems dangerous from their perspective. 

I would agree the problem is with the size of the deal in total not with how much each club gets from that paltry amount. I fail to see how the championship clubs would negotiate a worse deal than the Football League has managed.

It might not be Prem levels, but there are some massive teams in the Championship - Villa, West Brom, both Sheffields, Derby, Forest, Boro, and Leeds to name a few. We've got 10 former champions of England in our league and 2 European cup winners. I reckon they would get more money just getting their own fans to pay nevermind a broadcaster.

Don’t forget Red Dogs won it twice as well and a third time is only a matter of a couple of seasons away. ?

[Comrade 86]

9 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Apologies. Should have said Southerner rather than Cockney.

I have nothing against Londoners (or Southerners) just the stereotypical individuals that have adopted Man U as "their" club. Before you get upset again, I know and accept it's a lazy and boring stereotype.

interestingly, I seem to recall the posters handle (or whatever it's called now, I'm a bit behind the times) was Pat Butcher.

No worries, I was just in a foul mood yesterday. No need for me to bite nor you to apologise. Just ignore me mate. Few things on my mind and a tad tetchy right now. Sorry mate.

[ronnieronalde]

5 minutes ago, Archied said:

Ok I’m probably going to get painted as sexist too but it has been a bugbear of mine for a while that we are being force fed women’s boxing ,,,women’s boxing is fine if you want to watch/ support it then fair play but I don’t ,yet every other pay per view event/ fight I buy has to now have a bloody woman’s bout on the undercard ,

why ???   Put women’s boxing on pay per view as a stand alone event and give people the choice ,I m willing to bet the market for it will be next to nothing and that’s why it’s being foisted on us in this way 

And that's the issue for me in a nutshell, you've nailed it.

Women's sport is being treated as and served up to us an add on, it's bolted together with male sport, sponsorship packages, tv deals, exactly the same. Companies pay for the mens sponsorship then the women's game gets a cut. It's actually pretty disrespectful and lazy from the powers that be.

Market the game more at ground level, make people aware when games are played but don't try to force a professional league until the money is there to sustain it.

How does the ESL survive and pay a squad of professional women players and backroom staff a salary with gates of less than 1,000.

 

 

[Ellafella]

18 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

What a really strange comment.

Fans of Championship teams are more likely to attend games I imagine than watching it on tv.

If nobody is bothered about watching it why are Sky paying £595 million for the rights?

Also is he suggesting that people who aren't fans of the Premier League still watch the games? 

 

Absolutely. Longer term it’s about reaching more people in a “potential” market and them becoming regular viewers/fans. At present Mel is rightly pointing out a quite substantial pro rata difference in revenue gap between EFL and Prem which is made more acute when you factor in how many clubs lower down the pyramid are close to bankruptcy; Mel is arguing for a bigger slice of the cake for all EFL clubs. Problem is, the threat of a breakaway league is probably hubris and not really achievable realistically. So Mel’s beef is with the EFL who signed the deal without going for a higher share. 

[RoyMac5]

Can't blame Mel, et al - £595m over 5 years seems peanuts for all EFL clubs. What is the Prem revenue over 5 years?

[Ghost of Clough]

17 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Can't blame Mel, et al - £595m over 5 years seems peanuts for all EFL clubs. What is the Prem revenue over 5 years?

Not too far off the £595m... for each club!

 

Edit: actual deal is equivalent to 405m per club over 5 years

[Curtains]

19 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Not too far off the £595m... for each club!

 

Edit: actual deal is equivalent to 405m per club over 5 years

Don’t you mean 405 thousand?

[ThePrisoner]

3 hours ago, Sparkle said:

The whole sky sports type of scenario is a very sticky wicket for me 

i really enjoy watching the championship- competitive and my team is in it

premership - I simply don’t watch it

European champions league - not interested- europa cup - not interested 

other leagues around the world  - not interested 

everything else 

rugby - don’t watch it 

tennis don’t watch 

golf - don’t watch it apart from the Ryder cup every two years

F one - don’t watch it 

cricket - yep I like the England stuff and 20/20 matches

NFL NBA - not interested 

any women’s versions - don’t watch it ( sorry ladies) 

well what am I saying ? - I would only like to buy and pay for a very small amount so why can’t I competitively do that legally 

You can buy individual Sky Sports channels now. Been that way for over a year I think. 

[ThePrisoner]

18 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Don’t you mean 405 thousand?

No. He said for Prem teams. 

[Curtains]

6 minutes ago, ThePrisoner said:

No. He said for Prem teams. 

Ok sorry but what is Championship revenue for each club over 5 years !

 

[Archied]

The truth is that there probably is no escape from a breakaway now or at some point in the future ,, it’s already been set in motion by the premier league breakaway and there’s no turning back , how can clubs like Derby ,leeds ,villa ,Sunderland ect ect sit back and watch clubs like Bournemouth make us look like minnows in financial terms ?

these are big clubs that are the fabric and history of our game being bled dry and frozen out ,forced to gamble with their existence to even compete at the middle of the premiership , the genie is out of the bottle and can’t/ won’t be put back in 

[The Key Club King]

On 20/11/2018 at 06:15, CWC1983 said:

Simon Jordan gave a good summary last night. 

The only option available is to breakaway from the league, but he said in reality its a non starter and the "big clubs" are basically sabre rattling.

At the moment, transfers between clubs in the EFL can be spread over years due to current rules, but a breakaway league will not be included within these rules and clubs will have to stump up the whole fee in a oner. 

He said a 5 year deal is probobly too long given how technology and various ways of watching tv will likely evolve. 

He pointed out that apart from the fans of the championship, no one is really interested in watching it on tv, so if the Leeds, Villa ( Mel by association) owners feel they can get a better deal then put up or shut up. 

 

 

Think this sums up the situation well. 

Despite the Football League bashing on here I cannot imagine they are likely to have turned down potentially more money from other broadcasters in the past 15 years or so. Pro rata comparisons to the EPL are pointless. The Sky money is reflective of market value and I don't think its a bad deal at all. 

Sky may have lost some football rights but if they were to refuse higher demands there is no guarantee it would be picked up elsewhere and it could sell for a lot less then. 

You only have to look at Frank Lampard's Derby County to see where the interest lies. 

[angieram]

7 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

Sky can't afford to lose the Championship while they haven't got champions league rights. They charge a fortune for Sky Sports Football and already we're unable to watch some of the bigger games unless we have BT Sports as well.

I'm not sexist, I'm not but their sports main event last weekend was women's international cricket. This weekend, women's Rugby.

I understand the sports need to embrace women's teams and I'm sure the audience will grow as standards improve and number of people interested increase but christ on a bike, the stadium itself was totally empty, no bugger wanted to go and watch the game live never mind have it as Saturday evening's main event.

I honestly feel we're being force fed women's sport and no-one dares speak out due to equality issues. I'm aware I'll be alienating the female posters here but if anyone wants to boost women's sports get up off your arse and go to watch them live. Increased attendances = increased exposure = increased sponsorship = more money = better standards.

Sky Sports, I pay £75 quid a month and I rarely watch a Premier League game, I subscribed while Burton were in the Championship and now it's only Derby and Forest that keep me hanging around at all. if they lost the EFL as well, what's the point.

I'd be keen to have a look in 12 months when they've had time to work out how much "the red button" games have cost clubs in revenue.

I don't watch much women's sport either, to be honest - except athletics and tennis. At the moment I actually prefer women's athletics as we have got such world class competitors whereas until this last season or two we've had a dip in the men's standards (apart from Mo!)

Funnily enough, my husband watches quite a lot of women's cricket on Sky - I do think it is getting much better now.

Women's football - not for me yet. Think the game has a lot of growing to do first.

To get back on topic, firstly you will get your Sky package much cheaper if you ring them and threaten to leave - we do that regularly or we wouldn't be able to afford to keep it on.

Secondly, with the added exposure that Frankie Lampard's Derby County has given us, I have spoken to more Premier League supporters this season than for a while. Even locally, there is little awareness of what's going on down in the Championship. I don't think we are as big a catch as we think we are, sadly.

I feel the fault is with the vast financial difference with the Premier League deal and the fact that it has made the actual gap much wider over time. They can afford the best players and mop them all up.

[G STAR RAM]

26 minutes ago, The Key Club King said:

Think this sums up the situation well. 

Despite the Football League bashing on here I cannot imagine they are likely to have turned down potentially more money from other broadcasters in the past 15 years or so. Pro rata comparisons to the EPL are pointless. The Sky money is reflective of market value and I don't think its a bad deal at all. 

Sky may have lost some football rights but if they were to refuse higher demands there is no guarantee it would be picked up elsewhere and it could sell for a lot less then. 

You only have to look at Frank Lampard's Derby County to see where the interest lies. 

Well surely the club's kicking up the fuss think there is better money to be made elsewhere and I think Leeds chairman is well positioned to have insight on this.

I'm not sure why you would not want to use the Premier League as a comparison? This would have to be the starting point. Ok you would not expect to achieve the same £ per viewer but you would want to know why the disparity is so great.

I'd also want to know what is being offered in terms of compensation for declining attendances, should that be the case since the introduction of the red button matches.

For me, the EFL does not appear to have protected the interests of all of its member and signing a 5 year deal at a time of rapidly evolving treads and technologies is bizarre to say the least. 

[Ellafella]

41 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well surely the club's kicking up the fuss think there is better money to be made elsewhere and I think Leeds chairman is well positioned to have insight on this.

I'm not sure why you would not want to use the Premier League as a comparison? This would have to be the starting point. Ok you would not expect to achieve the same £ per viewer but you would want to know why the disparity is so great.

I'd also want to know what is being offered in terms of compensation for declining attendances, should that be the case since the introduction of the red button matches.

For me, the EFL does not appear to have protected the interests of all of its members and signing a 5 year deal at a time of rapidly evolving treads and technologies is bizarre to say the least. 

Absolutely spot on @G STAR RAM. The EFL are perhaps happy to pick up the scraps from the “big table” for the benefit of its League 1 & League 2 Clubs but the clubs who are unhappy are those who are at the top end of the Championship with ambition...

You do wonder why the EFL would handcuff itself to a 5 year deal when technology, and viewing preferences of fans are likely to interact quite significantly to produce many different sorts of football watchers {fans at the ground; fans in different parts of Britain, fans in Europe, fans off the continent, people off the continent who are not yet fans but who could/will be in 2 or 3 years...and so on. 

MM et alia are simply taking a strategic approach and lifting their heads up. They have every right to question the equity of Sky money as it’s their personal money that is subsidising the impact of Sky Tv through reduced gate receipts etc. 

This will rumble on...remember though football is nothing without the fans and the EFL is replete with teams playing to banks of empty seats...

...and what about the many real fans who are totally inconvenienced by 11th hour schedule changes just so Sky can broadcast to vaguely interested neutral fans on a Monday night in December. 

[curb]

1 hour ago, The Key Club King said:

Think this sums up the situation well. 

Despite the Football League bashing on here I cannot imagine they are likely to have turned down potentially more money from other broadcasters in the past 15 years or so. Pro rata comparisons to the EPL are pointless. The Sky money is reflective of market value and I don't think its a bad deal at all. 

Sky may have lost some football rights but if they were to refuse higher demands there is no guarantee it would be picked up elsewhere and it could sell for a lot less then. 

You only have to look at Frank Lampard's Derby County to see where the interest lies. 

Then why did the Premier League clubs resign from the football league and join together to form the Premier League. 

It was because the football league didn't look after their interests or see how TV was developing. 

Can you honestly say the football league would now be bringing in the deals that the Premier League are making?

Theyd probably still be charging 100k a year for a Sunday highlights show. 

[FindernRam]

We are all getting a bit carried away here on the attractiveness of Championship football. If the figures shown earlier are correct, less people watch our matches on the box than watch Topsy and Tim on CBeeBies. 

If Sky pay more for that sort of audience it means fees go up and figures go down. They won't pull the advertising figures.

[RoyMac5]

13 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

We are all getting a bit carried away here on the attractiveness of Championship football. If the figures shown earlier are correct, less people watch our matches on the box than watch Topsy and Tim on CBeeBies. 

If Sky pay more for that sort of audience it means fees go up and figures go down. They won't pull the advertising figures.

The Championship is a very attractive league, the attendance figures show that. If it was correctly marketed as Premier League 2, because that's what it is, then I see no reason why the tv/online viewing figures & revenue shouldn't be increasing. It didn't take much to get Derby better known world-wide. I see no reason why PL/Championship couldn't be similarly elevated.