General New EFL rule - Clubs have to make a profit

[horseman]

Do the major supermarkets share their income with the corner shops etc?

 

[Fred]

Do the major supermarkets share their income with the corner shops etc?

That is true they don't, each club I think is run as a normal business. Although they have to work within fa rules. In some ways should we have professional clubs with so few crowds?

 

[horseman]

That is true they don't, each club I think is run as a normal business. Although they have to work within fa rules. In some ways should we have professional clubs with so few crowds?

what difference would that make to the ever growing gap?

 

[horseman]

it is very simple if you want to at least minimize the elite clubs fortunes don't buy the tv subscriptions but sadly it's a small crumb due to popularity overseas

 

[horseman]

i would be interested to know if lower league clubs receive monies when their games are broadcast overseas,i've never heard that this is the case and we were on Live 3 times last season alone when "not" on in UK

 

[Fred]

what difference would that make to the ever growing gap?

I'm not sure it does, just wondering what should happen to make clubs more sustainable. I know for example if oufc didn't exist most fans would not go to another club

 

[Fred]

Without government involvement how can things change the FA can only do what the big club's want to do.

 

[horseman]

I'm not sure it does, just wondering what should happen to make clubs more sustainable. I know for example if oufc didn't exist most fans would not go to another club

But you're talking as an after event, if Oufc had never existed people may or may not have watched someone else..

Going forward things are never going to change financially, the Top 6 or so will get richer the rest in the prem just aim to survive/stay up due to the money so t's not even worth a debate anymore.

 

[Fred]

But you're talking as an after event, if Oufc had never existed people may or may not have watched someone else..

Going forward things are never going to change financially, the Top 6 or so will get richer the rest in the prem just aim to survive/stay up due to the money so t's not even worth a debate anymore.

Ok I'll have a cup of coffee then...bye

 

[Fred]

Ok I'll have a cup of coffee then...bye

I'm back
Surely the boffins can create a legal structure that means clubs have to run sustainable? That is the issue? Stopping clubs from selling stadiums to themselves or employing players in one of there other businesses as well or massive sponsorship deals etc

 

[bazzer9461]

Without government involvement how can things change the FA can only do what the big club's want to do.

I think this issue has to be dealt with world wide ie FIFA and all the various FA’s nationally Oman’s internationally where discussions are held and rules about the game regarding incomes and the TV monies and how they should be distributed. I know it’s a long shot but at least they could get involved officially whereas the governments can’t.

 

[Sarge]

European super league, once it starts, ( the when may be not known, but its very likely in the not too distant future)
what remains of PL will not have so much power to wield

 

[bazzer9461]

European super league, once it starts, ( the when may be not known, but its very likely in the not too distant future)
what remains of PL will not have so much power to wield

And not much cash, can’t see Murdoch or BT sponsoring the remaining Premier league clubs well certainly a lot less and f they did.

 

[Fred]

European super league, once it starts, ( the when may be not known, but its very likely in the not too distant future)
what remains of PL will not have so much power to wield

I know fans don't usually have any input but I'm not sure the average top PL fan wants a super league.

 

[Fred]

I suppose you could say the PL clubs are helping us little clubs by still competing with us in the 2 cups?

 

[Sarge]

I know fans don't usually have any input but I'm not sure the average top PL fan wants a super league.

take your word re average PL fans @Fred ... Im not one of them, Oxford Utd & England the only teams Im interested in

 

[bazzer9461]

take your word re average PL fans @Fred ... Im not one of them, Oxford Utd & England the only teams Im interested in

Snap

 

[RgYellows]

I know fans don't usually have any input but I'm not sure the average top PL fan wants a super league.

You're raising some thought provoking points.

I would assume that the top teams won't need permission from the clubs that get left behind, so I wouldn't expect their voices to count for much at all.

If we're talking about the average fan of Liverpool or Man Utd, then I think I disagree with you.

Firstly, the average fan of those clubs is probably not from the UK, and certainly doesn't go to games. Some of the most obvious downsides to a Super League disappear - they won't worry about increased travel costs or difficulty of travelling to away games. They won't miss any local rivalries with smaller clubs or any traditions invoked from travelling to certain grounds.

The most successful teams have huge numbers of fans from all around the world. They are skilled at exploiting the commercial benefits of this, which gives them a huge financial advantage.

A handful of teams dominate each of the biggest leagues in Europe - when I watch a PL game on tv, I am struck by how one sided they are. Very often they look like training games, attack vs defence. The stats back it up - in 2003-04, there were 11 PL games where one team had 65% or more possession. By 2016-7, it rose to 94. Teams like Liverpool only get challenged in a handful of Premier League games each year, and in the latter stages of the Champions League.

The appeal of the Super League is to effectively create that Champions League competitiveness on a weekly basis. I think that would be a big sell for fans. The football played between clubs like Barcelona and Man City is as good, technically, as any that has ever been played. A Super League can't be less interesting for neutrals than watching a team win 32 games in a 38 game season.

It would be interesting to see whether a Super League would end up being dominated by a similar group of three or four clubs, or if each club would have enough clout to have a chance every year. Maybe they would agree to share revenues with each other and limit spending, as happens with American sports. Otherwise, I think they'd need some sort of relegation and promotion opportunity - otherwise the smallest teams could end up resigned to finishing bottom each year, and would have no incentive to spend money when they could just cash the tv cheques.

I don't really think that most clubs now can compete with the likes of Liverpool or Barcelona on a sustained basis, in the same way that I couldn't open up a book shop and compete with Amazon. Some people still use local book stores, and they often accept paying more for less. They do it because it feels good to support the local community, and because the experience feels more personal. A lot don't bother, and that's why Amazon dominates.

 

[Fred]

You're raising some thought provoking points.

I would assume that the top teams won't need permission from the clubs that get left behind, so I wouldn't expect their voices to count for much at all.

If we're talking about the average fan of Liverpool or Man Utd, then I think I disagree with you.

Firstly, the average fan of those clubs is probably not from the UK, and certainly doesn't go to games. Some of the most obvious downsides to a Super League disappear - they won't worry about increased travel costs or difficulty of travelling to away games. They won't miss any local rivalries with smaller clubs or any traditions invoked from travelling to certain grounds.

The most successful teams have huge numbers of fans from all around the world. They are skilled at exploiting the commercial benefits of this, which gives them a huge financial advantage.

A handful of teams dominate each of the biggest leagues in Europe - when I watch a PL game on tv, I am struck by how one sided they are. Very often they look like training games, attack vs defence. The stats back it up - in 2003-04, there were 11 PL games where one team had 65% or more possession. By 2016-7, it rose to 94. Teams like Liverpool only get challenged in a handful of Premier League games each year, and in the latter stages of the Champions League.

The appeal of the Super League is to effectively create that Champions League competitiveness on a weekly basis. I think that would be a big sell for fans. The football played between clubs like Barcelona and Man City is as good, technically, as any that has ever been played. A Super League can't be less interesting for neutrals than watching a team win 32 games in a 38 game season.

It would be interesting to see whether a Super League would end up being dominated by a similar group of three or four clubs, or if each club would have enough clout to have a chance every year. Maybe they would agree to share revenues with each other and limit spending, as happens with American sports. Otherwise, I think they'd need some sort of relegation and promotion opportunity - otherwise the smallest teams could end up resigned to finishing bottom each year, and would have no incentive to spend money when they could just cash the tv cheques.

I don't really think that most clubs now can compete with the likes of Liverpool or Barcelona on a sustained basis, in the same way that I couldn't open up a book shop and compete with Amazon. Some people still use local book stores, and they often accept paying more for less. They do it because it feels good to support the local community, and because the experience feels more personal. A lot don't bother, and that's why Amazon dominates.

You're raising some thought provoking points.

I would assume that the top teams won't need permission from the clubs that get left behind, so I wouldn't expect their voices to count for much at all.

If we're talking about the average fan of Liverpool or Man Utd, then I think I disagree with you.

Firstly, the average fan of those clubs is probably not from the UK, and certainly doesn't go to games. Some of the most obvious downsides to a Super League disappear - they won't worry about increased travel costs or difficulty of travelling to away games. They won't miss any local rivalries with smaller clubs or any traditions invoked from travelling to certain grounds.

The most successful teams have huge numbers of fans from all around the world. They are skilled at exploiting the commercial benefits of this, which gives them a huge financial advantage.

A handful of teams dominate each of the biggest leagues in Europe - when I watch a PL game on tv, I am struck by how one sided they are. Very often they look like training games, attack vs defence. The stats back it up - in 2003-04, there were 11 PL games where one team had 65% or more possession. By 2016-7, it rose to 94. Teams like Liverpool only get challenged in a handful of Premier League games each year, and in the latter stages of the Champions League.

The appeal of the Super League is to effectively create that Champions League competitiveness on a weekly basis. I think that would be a big sell for fans. The football played between clubs like Barcelona and Man City is as good, technically, as any that has ever been played. A Super League can't be less interesting for neutrals than watching a team win 32 games in a 38 game season.

It would be interesting to see whether a Super League would end up being dominated by a similar group of three or four clubs, or if each club would have enough clout to have a chance every year. Maybe they would agree to share revenues with each other and limit spending, as happens with American sports. Otherwise, I think they'd need some sort of relegation and promotion opportunity - otherwise the smallest teams could end up resigned to finishing bottom each year, and would have no incentive to spend money when they could just cash the tv cheques.

I don't really think that most clubs now can compete with the likes of Liverpool or Barcelona on a sustained basis, in the same way that I couldn't open up a book shop and compete with Amazon. Some people still use local book stores, and they often accept paying more for less. They do it because it feels good to support the local community, and because the experience feels more personal. A lot don't bother, and that's why Amazon dominates.

Do the top teams dominate more now in terms of points gained?
I don't think for example Liverpool would join a super league if most fans that went to matches were against it?

 

[SteMerritt]

You're raising some thought provoking points.

I would assume that the top teams won't need permission from the clubs that get left behind, so I wouldn't expect their voices to count for much at all.

If we're talking about the average fan of Liverpool or Man Utd, then I think I disagree with you.

Firstly, the average fan of those clubs is probably not from the UK, and certainly doesn't go to games. Some of the most obvious downsides to a Super League disappear - they won't worry about increased travel costs or difficulty of travelling to away games. They won't miss any local rivalries with smaller clubs or any traditions invoked from travelling to certain grounds.

The most successful teams have huge numbers of fans from all around the world. They are skilled at exploiting the commercial benefits of this, which gives them a huge financial advantage.

A handful of teams dominate each of the biggest leagues in Europe - when I watch a PL game on tv, I am struck by how one sided they are. Very often they look like training games, attack vs defence. The stats back it up - in 2003-04, there were 11 PL games where one team had 65% or more possession. By 2016-7, it rose to 94. Teams like Liverpool only get challenged in a handful of Premier League games each year, and in the latter stages of the Champions League.

The appeal of the Super League is to effectively create that Champions League competitiveness on a weekly basis. I think that would be a big sell for fans. The football played between clubs like Barcelona and Man City is as good, technically, as any that has ever been played. A Super League can't be less interesting for neutrals than watching a team win 32 games in a 38 game season.

It would be interesting to see whether a Super League would end up being dominated by a similar group of three or four clubs, or if each club would have enough clout to have a chance every year. Maybe they would agree to share revenues with each other and limit spending, as happens with American sports. Otherwise, I think they'd need some sort of relegation and promotion opportunity - otherwise the smallest teams could end up resigned to finishing bottom each year, and would have no incentive to spend money when they could just cash the tv cheques.

I don't really think that most clubs now can compete with the likes of Liverpool or Barcelona on a sustained basis, in the same way that I couldn't open up a book shop and compete with Amazon. Some people still use local book stores, and they often accept paying more for less. They do it because it feels good to support the local community, and because the experience feels more personal. A lot don't bother, and that's why Amazon dominates.

Reading that depresses me. And I can't find fault in any of the logic.