| The end is nigh? 07:57 - Jul 29 with 2610 views | rochdaleriddler |
For transfer madness maybe, in the Times yesterday I read that sky is putting more resources into its other programming, to reduce its exposure to falling sports coverage revenues. Maybe the days of it paying vast sums for premier league games are numbered |  |
| |  |
| The end is nigh? on 08:05 - Jul 29 with 2592 views | BartRowou |
You now have a situation where a club like Middlesbrough can come down from the top division and spend 20 million on two strikers whereas other clubs in the same division are told that they can only spend so much or they'll face embargo.
The Sky money initially did a lot to drag football out of the gutter but somewhere along the way the game lost its soul.
I'd be interested to hear what younger fans, who don't know any different, make of it all. |  |
| |
| The end is nigh? on 08:07 - Jul 29 with 2588 views | roccydaleian |
Probably due to BT ploughing more money in. Bet, Sky's prices don't drop though. |  | | |
| The end is nigh? on 08:41 - Jul 29 with 2540 views | rochdaleriddler |
| The end is nigh? on 08:07 - Jul 29 by roccydaleian |
Probably due to BT ploughing more money in. Bet, Sky's prices don't drop though. |
Just got 8 sky channels with talk talk £8.50 a month for 18 months | |
| |
| The end is nigh? on 09:03 - Jul 29 with 2494 views | AtThePeake |
| The end is nigh? on 08:05 - Jul 29 by BartRowou |
You now have a situation where a club like Middlesbrough can come down from the top division and spend 20 million on two strikers whereas other clubs in the same division are told that they can only spend so much or they'll face embargo.
The Sky money initially did a lot to drag football out of the gutter but somewhere along the way the game lost its soul.
I'd be interested to hear what younger fans, who don't know any different, make of it all. |
I was born in the same year as the Premier League began so I think I fit the criteria as a younger fan who doesn't know any different.
For me, there are two main negatives that have come from the Sky money. One being the one you mentioned about the gap between teams coming down from the top tier and those already in the second tier. I really don't understand why these clubs deserve 'parachute payments' for being relegated (if there's a chance you could go down then cut your cloth accordingly) and it only serves to create something of a league within a league in the second tier where the teams who have recently been in the Premier League can compete financially and those that have spent more and more time away from the top tier are in need of investment before they can.
Secondly, the game is becoming less accessible and this is something that seriously needs to change. Ticket prices are absolutely ridiculous, but holding up an 'Against Modern Football' banner at a football ground isn't going to change anything. Proper organised rallying and pressure from groups like the FSF that have led to changes like the £30 away tickets in the PL are the way to go. However, I'm not sure Sky can be blamed for that. The extra exposure they've given the PL may have increased fanbases in the case of some clubs and thus the demand for tickets, but the money they're pumping into the clubs should subsidise ticket prices. The gate receipts count for such a nominal amount of a top PL club's income in the grand scheme of things so it's on the clubs themselves to make the matches more accessible as they would suffer so little for doing so.
However, as far as I can tell, there are definite positives to come out of it too. As I've said on this board before I often go to watch Tottenham games when I can, both down in London and at away games in the North, and I really don't believe that the game has lost it's soul at the top level. The atmosphere at these grounds for a big game is still on another level and the 'soul' of the game is offered up by the core of regular supporters who (as far as I know) are no less loyal or passionate than they were 20, 30 years ago.
Although we've seen a semi-comeback for 'hooliganism' in recent years, from the stories I've been told of yesteryear it's much safer to attend a game at the top level in these current times and it certainly is safer in the ground with the introduction of all-seater stadiums and potentially safe standing in the future.
The quality of football we get to see at the top level now is phenomenal. Some of the best players in the world have come and plied their trade in our country simply because of the reputation the Premier League has garnered under Sky and they're playing on better pitches and in better, safer stadiums. Although the league is less competitive in the sense that only 5/6 teams can realistically win the league every year (ignoring the Leicester anomaly), I actually tend to think that lends itself to a more exciting league in some ways as we get 'shocks' on an almost-weekly basis as a smaller side overcomes one of the bigger sides and we also get these huge clashes between these teams at the top of the table.
And what's more, thanks to Sky we get to watch a tonne of football nowadays. Although some are now on BT, it was Sky who set the precedent of showing so many games and although some may argue it ruins the dynamic of Saturday afternoon football, the vast majority of football fans love watching as many games as they can or at least having the option to do so.
All in all, there are obvious negatives to what has happened to the game in the last 20-30 years, but I think a lot of fans fail to see that there have actually been a lot of positives too and judging from what I have heard of years gone by, I'd rather be a football fan in 2017 than 1987 - and Spurs would still be nowhere near winning the league anyway! [Post edited 29 Jul 2017 15:08]
|  |
| |
| The end is nigh? on 11:28 - Jul 29 with 2256 views | D_Alien |
| The end is nigh? on 09:03 - Jul 29 by AtThePeake |
I was born in the same year as the Premier League began so I think I fit the criteria as a younger fan who doesn't know any different.
For me, there are two main negatives that have come from the Sky money. One being the one you mentioned about the gap between teams coming down from the top tier and those already in the second tier. I really don't understand why these clubs deserve 'parachute payments' for being relegated (if there's a chance you could go down then cut your cloth accordingly) and it only serves to create something of a league within a league in the second tier where the teams who have recently been in the Premier League can compete financially and those that have spent more and more time away from the top tier are in need of investment before they can.
Secondly, the game is becoming less accessible and this is something that seriously needs to change. Ticket prices are absolutely ridiculous, but holding up an 'Against Modern Football' banner at a football ground isn't going to change anything. Proper organised rallying and pressure from groups like the FSF that have led to changes like the £30 away tickets in the PL are the way to go. However, I'm not sure Sky can be blamed for that. The extra exposure they've given the PL may have increased fanbases in the case of some clubs and thus the demand for tickets, but the money they're pumping into the clubs should subsidise ticket prices. The gate receipts count for such a nominal amount of a top PL club's income in the grand scheme of things so it's on the clubs themselves to make the matches more accessible as they would suffer so little for doing so.
However, as far as I can tell, there are definite positives to come out of it too. As I've said on this board before I often go to watch Tottenham games when I can, both down in London and at away games in the North, and I really don't believe that the game has lost it's soul at the top level. The atmosphere at these grounds for a big game is still on another level and the 'soul' of the game is offered up by the core of regular supporters who (as far as I know) are no less loyal or passionate than they were 20, 30 years ago.
Although we've seen a semi-comeback for 'hooliganism' in recent years, from the stories I've been told of yesteryear it's much safer to attend a game at the top level in these current times and it certainly is safer in the ground with the introduction of all-seater stadiums and potentially safe standing in the future.
The quality of football we get to see at the top level now is phenomenal. Some of the best players in the world have come and plied their trade in our country simply because of the reputation the Premier League has garnered under Sky and they're playing on better pitches and in better, safer stadiums. Although the league is less competitive in the sense that only 5/6 teams can realistically win the league every year (ignoring the Leicester anomaly), I actually tend to think that lends itself to a more exciting league in some ways as we get 'shocks' on an almost-weekly basis as a smaller side overcomes one of the bigger sides and we also get these huge clashes between these teams at the top of the table.
And what's more, thanks to Sky we get to watch a tonne of football nowadays. Although some are now on BT, it was Sky who set the precedent of showing so many games and although some may argue it ruins the dynamic of Saturday afternoon football, the vast majority of football fans love watching as many games as they can or at least having the option to do so.
All in all, there are obvious negatives to what has happened to the game in the last 20-30 years, but I think a lot of fans fail to see that there have actually been a lot of positives too and judging from what I have heard of years gone by, I'd rather be a football fan in 2017 than 1987 - and Spurs would still be nowhere near winning the league anyway! [Post edited 29 Jul 2017 15:08]
|
Excellent post ATP
Good to hear your "other" club's chair voicing sensible views on the current spending madness too |  |
| |
| The end is nigh? on 16:49 - Jul 29 with 1890 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
Agree...........Spurs are great to watch and in Potch have a great manager,bit like Dale in L1? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The end is nigh? on 00:38 - Jul 30 with 1636 views | AtThePeake |
| The end is nigh? on 16:49 - Jul 29 by Yorkshire_Dale |
Agree...........Spurs are great to watch and in Potch have a great manager,bit like Dale in L1? |
Warms my heart reading that YD! | |
| |
| The end is nigh? on 20:25 - Aug 2 with 1201 views | Nigeriamark |
Perhaps in the premier league, but with PSG potentially paying 198m for Neymar the madness is still in the game - mind boggling
Will premier league teams still try to compete with these mega club transfers? |  | | |
| The end is nigh? on 20:52 - Aug 2 with 1153 views | TalkingSutty |
| The end is nigh? on 20:25 - Aug 2 by Nigeriamark |
Perhaps in the premier league, but with PSG potentially paying 198m for Neymar the madness is still in the game - mind boggling
Will premier league teams still try to compete with these mega club transfers? |
£500,000/week wages after tax, not even funny that, it's obscene. The more they earn, the less i want to watch it. [Post edited 2 Aug 2017 21:04]
|  | | |
| The end is nigh? on 20:53 - Aug 2 with 1150 views | NorthernDale |
Football at the top level will sooner or later implode, in that teams even in the bottom half are spending money and paying vast wages to survive in the premiership, and if they get relegated and do not get promoted straight back then the sh*t its the fans. Just look at Bolton or Blackburn for two local examples who were paying vast wages and pretending they were still in or had hopes of being in the premiership, they are struggling to survive with the massive debts they have, It can also be said that the impact of the fees and wages have filtered down the leagues, just look at the wages for average footballers in the championship for example and in some cases being paid by some clubs in league one and two.
Football needs to wake up quick to the debts be built up. I give credit to Levy who says the money demand is getting beyond s joke and Tottenham are looking to give the youngsters a chance. What will happen at Man City or PSG when the Arabs get bored and take their money out of the clubs, or the Chelsea owner decides enough is enough in investing in the club. These clubs will have massive debts and wage commitments, and will struggle to pay them off, even with Sky's or BT's TV money | | | |
| The end is nigh? on 20:58 - Aug 2 with 1131 views | SuddenLad |
| The end is nigh? on 20:52 - Aug 2 by TalkingSutty |
£500,000/week wages after tax, not even funny that, it's obscene. The more they earn, the less i want to watch it. [Post edited 2 Aug 2017 21:04]
|
Spot on. I don't watch it and don't care about it. They deserve to implode. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| The end is nigh? on 21:20 - Aug 2 with 1064 views | TVOS1907 |
| The end is nigh? on 09:03 - Jul 29 by AtThePeake |
I was born in the same year as the Premier League began so I think I fit the criteria as a younger fan who doesn't know any different.
For me, there are two main negatives that have come from the Sky money. One being the one you mentioned about the gap between teams coming down from the top tier and those already in the second tier. I really don't understand why these clubs deserve 'parachute payments' for being relegated (if there's a chance you could go down then cut your cloth accordingly) and it only serves to create something of a league within a league in the second tier where the teams who have recently been in the Premier League can compete financially and those that have spent more and more time away from the top tier are in need of investment before they can.
Secondly, the game is becoming less accessible and this is something that seriously needs to change. Ticket prices are absolutely ridiculous, but holding up an 'Against Modern Football' banner at a football ground isn't going to change anything. Proper organised rallying and pressure from groups like the FSF that have led to changes like the £30 away tickets in the PL are the way to go. However, I'm not sure Sky can be blamed for that. The extra exposure they've given the PL may have increased fanbases in the case of some clubs and thus the demand for tickets, but the money they're pumping into the clubs should subsidise ticket prices. The gate receipts count for such a nominal amount of a top PL club's income in the grand scheme of things so it's on the clubs themselves to make the matches more accessible as they would suffer so little for doing so.
However, as far as I can tell, there are definite positives to come out of it too. As I've said on this board before I often go to watch Tottenham games when I can, both down in London and at away games in the North, and I really don't believe that the game has lost it's soul at the top level. The atmosphere at these grounds for a big game is still on another level and the 'soul' of the game is offered up by the core of regular supporters who (as far as I know) are no less loyal or passionate than they were 20, 30 years ago.
Although we've seen a semi-comeback for 'hooliganism' in recent years, from the stories I've been told of yesteryear it's much safer to attend a game at the top level in these current times and it certainly is safer in the ground with the introduction of all-seater stadiums and potentially safe standing in the future.
The quality of football we get to see at the top level now is phenomenal. Some of the best players in the world have come and plied their trade in our country simply because of the reputation the Premier League has garnered under Sky and they're playing on better pitches and in better, safer stadiums. Although the league is less competitive in the sense that only 5/6 teams can realistically win the league every year (ignoring the Leicester anomaly), I actually tend to think that lends itself to a more exciting league in some ways as we get 'shocks' on an almost-weekly basis as a smaller side overcomes one of the bigger sides and we also get these huge clashes between these teams at the top of the table.
And what's more, thanks to Sky we get to watch a tonne of football nowadays. Although some are now on BT, it was Sky who set the precedent of showing so many games and although some may argue it ruins the dynamic of Saturday afternoon football, the vast majority of football fans love watching as many games as they can or at least having the option to do so.
All in all, there are obvious negatives to what has happened to the game in the last 20-30 years, but I think a lot of fans fail to see that there have actually been a lot of positives too and judging from what I have heard of years gone by, I'd rather be a football fan in 2017 than 1987 - and Spurs would still be nowhere near winning the league anyway! [Post edited 29 Jul 2017 15:08]
|
"Some of the best players in the world have come and plied their trade in our country simply because of the reputation the Premier League has garnered under Sky and they're playing on better pitches and in better, safer stadiums."
No, they come to play here because of the ridiculous amounts of money they get paid. And then, when someone offers them even more, they up sticks to elsewhere. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| The end is nigh? on 21:42 - Aug 2 with 1036 views | KenBoon |
Spurs are currently spending their millions on a new corporate super-dome facility, so I don't feel they're morally wonderful. As for this Neymar nonsense. It's insane but private money. Neymar's biggest contribution to Football is inspiring this cringy moment before his team's German lesson. Other than Scotland's 3-0 hammering by Morocco in 1998, that Neymar tribute is the funniest thing in World Cup history.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/brazil-vs-germany-worl |  | | |
| The end is nigh? on 21:47 - Aug 2 with 1023 views | D_Alien |
| The end is nigh? on 21:42 - Aug 2 by KenBoon |
Spurs are currently spending their millions on a new corporate super-dome facility, so I don't feel they're morally wonderful. As for this Neymar nonsense. It's insane but private money. Neymar's biggest contribution to Football is inspiring this cringy moment before his team's German lesson. Other than Scotland's 3-0 hammering by Morocco in 1998, that Neymar tribute is the funniest thing in World Cup history.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/brazil-vs-germany-worl |
What's wrong with expanding ground capacity to meet demand, and to utilise the income from ground development for the benefit of the club instead of relying on Sky money or massive injections of cash from owners who aren't fans? What's immoral about that? Sure, some of the corporate facilities will be expensive but I understand they're also keen to preserve/improve the facilities for their fanbase.
Isn't that - on a much smaller scale - what Dale are seeking to do through acquiring the stadium ownership and accompanying rights? | |
| |
| The end is nigh? on 22:38 - Aug 2 with 949 views | KenBoon |
| The end is nigh? on 21:47 - Aug 2 by D_Alien |
What's wrong with expanding ground capacity to meet demand, and to utilise the income from ground development for the benefit of the club instead of relying on Sky money or massive injections of cash from owners who aren't fans? What's immoral about that? Sure, some of the corporate facilities will be expensive but I understand they're also keen to preserve/improve the facilities for their fanbase.
Isn't that - on a much smaller scale - what Dale are seeking to do through acquiring the stadium ownership and accompanying rights? |
I never said it was immoral. I just said it wasn't morally wonderful. There's a difference between making your stadium operate and generate money 365 days a year and designing a stadium to attract and entertain corporates on match days. There's nothing wrong with what they're doing, it's how most sports clubs/franchises at their level operate, but it's not 'good old Football'. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
