Really? You think that matters more than TV money?Originally Posted by Diggs246
I actually think there will be no premier league next season. Unless played without fans. Which would ruin their brand
Really? You think that matters more than TV money?
My understanding is sky/BT etc are threatening to sue the premier league for breach of contract. I might be wrong but that's what I thought
Hence why I think they would go ahead and play games behind closed doors if they need to, regardless of how it may or may not "ruin their brand."
Is Covid-19 not an Act of God ? Tricky for atheists I suppose. I suppose Sky / BT will be atheist if it is better in Court ! !
I imagine TV rights holders and the league will want to get closed door matches going as soon as possible. Don’t see how anyone but idiots would hold it against the brand.
Any revenue better than no revenue — and TV money— not gate receipts, now makes up bulk of revenue given international viewership.
As crazy as it sounds, at this point in time, there has to be a chance of this being correct.
Problem is bar-stoolers, are bar-stoolers. If they can't see that Burnley vs Southampton is **** football, before a crowd, they won't notice it without a crowd.
they won't end up at a loi ground as a result - unfortunately. TV companies know this. They have the football fans hooked, "live" football in your pub/sitting room is a thing, it is the established norm now.
I'm surprised it has lasted this long to be honest. The only thing that has prevented it from happening I would imagine is seanfhear's comment below re Act of God. I assume that there are certain clauses written into these contracts, to protect against delays in seasons, but nothing on the potential scale of seasons being cancelled or reduced etc.
That said, surely tv companies sell their packages at the start of the season anyway, and customers who have purchased a package at the start of a season need to hold the contract for 12 months anyway, so there probably is protection in that?
I'm exhausted, so probably not getting what you are saying. If it isn't safe to attend football games, then it can't be safe to play football games. This shouldn't be hard to comprehend - I don't think anyway.
What annoys me about our current situation...it's an inconvenience, absolutely; but it's not a war. There are no food shortages, no rations. People can booze, eat ****e, watch tv, read books, order things online. There is no threat to life, if you apply a bit of common sense, and those around you do the same.
Here they come! It’s the charge of the “Thanks” Brigade!
"There is no threat to life"
I know you didn't mean this, but still !!!
I'm not sure about the Act of God thing but TV rights are sold on a multi-year basis usually. The Premier League will have missed a trick if they didn't have some Catastrophe or "unable to provide service" clause. Or if not they could/should have insurance. FIFA always insures the WC being unable to be staged because of terrorism for example, and Wimbledon cashed in $140 million recently from an insurance policy with Lloyd's of London. They had been paying $2 million a year premium to the Lloyd's market for insurance against a major disruption. Not sure if it was pandemic specific or a range of disruption events.
UEFA has decided to overlook FFP for this season I hear.
I think footballer's contracts should be structured roughly as follows:
A club earns 3 revenue lines: match day, commercial (ie sponsorship, merchandising betc.) and broadcasting
Broadcasting revenues are centrally distrubuted. For example, SKY pays the EPL, the EPL pays the clubs depending on a formula. UEFA sells rights to broadcasters and distributes to clubs according to a formula based on participation and performance
So,
A players joins a club on X salary. At the outset the club determines whether the amortisation of the transfer fee and the annual salary is affordable under FFP and if it's decent value. That's how things are currently.
But I think contracts should be constructed so that the salary is Miniumum Amount + (Additional Amount * Adjustment Factor).
Adjustment factor = something like: take Expected or ("base case") Match Day Annual Revenue and Expected Broadcasting Distributions, and adjust according to actual outcomes.
So if a club misses out on CL and CL was expected then wages adjust. If EPL performance is better than expected, wages adjust. If both fall off a cliff, then wages adjust dramatically.
Of course players unions won't go for it but it would introduce an automatic stabiliser. The leagues, clubs or players could collectively buy pandemic or other insurance against their income falling drastically due to an insurable event, but not a "bad footballing performance" event. Relegation would adjust wages down because a club would now be on a new TV deal, and this would avoid the Parachute Payment debacle which distorts balance in the lower leagues.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 27/04/2020 at 10:32 AM.
My theory on this is that it won't be possible to complete the Premier League in any real way. Liverpool's title is legitimate, but relegation isn't really fair under these circumstances. They should maybe allow Liverpool to play a few games behind closed door to make it mathematically secure, then decide final league positions on the basis of points per game.
Then have a 22 team Premier League starting in August or Sept, played behind closed doors if needs be, and don't have PL clubs in the cups next season (if they even take place). Have 4 down, and 2 up in 2020/21, then get back to normal in 2021/22.
Every league in every country will need a bespoke solution depending on how things were when football was suspended. E.g. Serie A might want to hold a 'final' between Lazio & Juve to decide the scudetto
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
Basically you want the EPL to finish in a way that suits Liverpool, Leeds and West Brom, right?
Either you finish out the league, or you don't. You cannot "look after" a few teams, by engineering a finish that suits them, but leave other teams hanging
PPG if the league stopped today, would put Sheffield United ahead of Man United, something that could decide a CL spot, if City are banned for next season.
And then why aren't Wolves/Spurs/Arsenal, even Burnley/Palace/Everton allowed a fair chance of making 5th, all are within 6 points, with 9/10 games left
And why only Leeds and West Brom going up? 11 teams are within 6 points of a play off spot. Are they not all entitled to have a fair chance of promotion too?
I wonder are you a Liverpool supporter? Because the league does not revolve around Liverpool.
Either finish it, or nullify it.
I don't think the options can be limited to just these two. In fact, I don't think either of those are options at all.
It's looking increasingly likely that "finish it" isn't going to be doable; France has suspended all professional sport until September for example. But if there is an EL/CL next season, then there needs to be some decision on who takes part, and UEFA have said nullifying a season isn't an option either.
Points per game is a reasonable way to decide things. It's obviously far from ideal - but then there is a killer pandemic on the rampage, and a bit of perspective is needed. SO when you say "why aren't Wolves/Spurs/Arsenal, even Burnley/Palace/Everton allowed a fair chance of making 5th", the answer again is that there's a killer pandemic going around. There is no ideal way to do things. Basing things off 30 games is better than your suggestion of basing things off no games.
I'm not a Liverpool supporter as a matter of fact. But a blind man could see that they had the league won.
Points per game isn't ideal, but it's the best of a bad bunch. Given their massive lead it's definitive enough to give Liverpool their title, but for me the obvious weaknesses make it impossible to use it to relegate anyone. Contracts are going to start expiring soon, some players will be looking to retire in the summer etc. With no end in sight to the pandemic it won't be possible to end the season before then, and it won't be fair to attempt to bring it back after the agreed end date.
Sooner or later it's going to be called off, and when that time comes it's going to be lawyers at dawn unless nobody ends up feeling hard done by. The only way to square that circle is finding a way of allowing Leeds and WBA to come up without relegating anybody.
The premier league had 22 teams from 92 to 95 so it's feasible to do it - especially considering travel restrictions will mean we're unlikely to have much in the way of European or International football for a while
Last edited by backstothewall; 29/04/2020 at 6:05 PM.
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
i personally think the best thing to do is finish the remaining games, whenever they can be played... get through the 38 games... have your winner and your top 4 and top 7 and bottom 3. the biggest stumbling block i can see is individual player's contract situations.
i'd abandon the european cup. when there's still 12 possible teams that can win something, it's hard for any one team to get too displeased, especially when the group stages are often a formality.
take a 4-6 week break or whatever you need and then do a curtailed season the next year, presumably no european football, no cups. just league games. should be able to re-unite everything in time for summer 2021 and the euros...
presumably the rest players are getting now should help avoid burnout over the next 18 months...
I would finish the season from September to Dec.
Then have a 19 game season from Jan - May. One game against each team as opposed to home and away
Folding my way into the big money!!!
Game confirmed for October 8th: https://www.fai.ie/ireland/news/kenn...-uefa-fixtures
Can we go to the f**Ker!!!
Uefa will probably discuss that issue at the next Uefa meeting in july.
As of now there's no word at all about attending Nations League in sept or the play offs in oct.
slovakia on the end of a 1-3 beating at home tonight against the czech rep
The same Czech team that were beaten last time out by what some people have said is a hopeless Bulgaria team.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks