EPThaven't we seen this before
2015 - 2016 Football Thread - Page 421
| Forum Index > Sports |
GTR
51593 Posts
haven't we seen this before | ||
|
Faruko
Chile34173 Posts
Juventus is forced to pay a 5m euro house for Pogba in Manchester | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4148 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On August 11 2016 08:18 nayumi wrote: The reason is pretty obvious. Clubs manage to make more money every year from television rights and sponsorship. ![[image loading]](http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/80917000/jpg/_80917618_rise_tvincome.jpg) More people are willing to spend (more) money to watch star players in the weekend, hence the clubs can afford to spend even more money on securing signings that are likely to attract more viewers. If Zidane were playing these days I wouldn't be surprised if Real would pay $200m for him. Football is still the most popular and arguably profitable sport in the world and I highly doubt it will change in the foreseeable future. And it has evolved beyond a mere sport event. It's not just football anymore, it's the Ronaldo vs Messi, the el classico, the London/Manchester derby, the overcoming CL curse .etc El Classico sure as hell attract more viewers worldwide ever since Real got Ronaldo. So it's a business now and those big fat businessmen know how much they get in return if they are to spend an absurd amount of initial investment more than we do, that's a fact. Thats all very poetic and cute, but its not like other sports dont have storylines, the NFL makes twice as much in TV money than the PL. Its not just a business now its always been a business. Its just not very good business. The executive will make his money regardless. Most PL clubs are not money making enterprises but simply vanity projects for rich owners who may or may not care much about any ROI You are also kinda late to the part in pointing out TV deals. On August 11 2016 00:39 Rebs wrote: Yeah but more money to spend isnt really a good argument for lets spend more money. I get it, its just not a good one imo, its their money they can do what they want with it and get why, but its a very dangerous direction. This was kinda the right answer On August 11 2016 05:48 mahrgell wrote: it is up to the fans, really... As long as fans are willing to shell all that money for tv packages, tickets and jerseys at the league/teams.... that money will be spent... Not sure why any football association should ever do anything against the "financial vote of the people". And if no one wants to watch or cheer for the lower division teams, those will dry up more and more. Really that simple. If more people support their local 2nd/3rd div team instead of sheikh FC #17 the money will at some point move back. TV deals and shirt sales. We is rich now boys... cha ching. You have a graph good job. Also as someone who has grown up in the markets that directly contribute to the actual reason the TV money is stupid (hint its not because of Europe) I understand quite well how the market works. The model is unsustainable. These are facts. http://swissramble.blogspot.ca/search/label/Premier League more facts.. http://swissramble.blogspot.ca/search/label/Premier League There is also a dangerous precedent being set for income inequality compared to lower tiers that no one will care about until it hits them in the face a few years from now. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On August 11 2016 21:10 Dante08 wrote: Guys need your help, any recommended cheap players for the upcoming fantasy season? Afobe - Bournemouth striker, if they score goals im sure he will be in the mix Lindgaard - United winger, he looks their best midfielder, outside of Miki of course. Drinkwater - Still cheap, carried Leicester with his midfield plays and assists Valdes - Will be Boro no1 choice, gotta be worth a punt for a sub keeper at least. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On August 11 2016 21:14 Rebs wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 11 2016 08:18 nayumi wrote: The reason is pretty obvious. Clubs manage to make more money every year from television rights and sponsorship. More people are willing to spend (more) money to watch star players in the weekend, hence the clubs can afford to spend even more money on securing signings that are likely to attract more viewers. If Zidane were playing these days I wouldn't be surprised if Real would pay $200m for him. Football is still the most popular and arguably profitable sport in the world and I highly doubt it will change in the foreseeable future. And it has evolved beyond a mere sport event. It's not just football anymore, it's the Ronaldo vs Messi, the el classico, the London/Manchester derby, the overcoming CL curse .etc El Classico sure as hell attract more viewers worldwide ever since Real got Ronaldo. So it's a business now and those big fat businessmen know how much they get in return if they are to spend an absurd amount of initial investment more than we do, that's a fact. Thats all very poetic and cute, but its not like other sports dont have storylines, the NFL makes twice as much in TV money than the PL. Its not just a business now its always been a business. Its just not very good business. The executive will make his money regardless. Most PL clubs are not money making enterprises but simply vanity projects for rich owners who may or may not care much about any ROI You are also kinda late to the part in pointing out TV deals. On August 11 2016 00:39 Rebs wrote: Yeah but more money to spend isnt really a good argument for lets spend more money. I get it, its just not a good one imo, its their money they can do what they want with it and get why, but its a very dangerous direction. This was kinda the right answer On August 11 2016 05:48 mahrgell wrote: it is up to the fans, really... As long as fans are willing to shell all that money for tv packages, tickets and jerseys at the league/teams.... that money will be spent... Not sure why any football association should ever do anything against the "financial vote of the people". And if no one wants to watch or cheer for the lower division teams, those will dry up more and more. Really that simple. If more people support their local 2nd/3rd div team instead of sheikh FC #17 the money will at some point move back. TV deals and shirt sales. We is rich now boys... cha ching. You have a graph good job. Also as someone who has grown up in the markets that directly contribute to the actual reason the TV money is stupid (hint its not because of Europe) I understand quite well how the market works. The model is unsustainable. These are facts. http://swissramble.blogspot.ca/search/label/Premier League more facts.. http://swissramble.blogspot.ca/search/label/Premier League There is also a dangerous precedent being set for income inequality compared to lower tiers that no one will care about until it hits them in the face a few years from now. 1. If you're implying that even though the NFL makes more TV money, the players aren't as expensive, then it's because they have a salary cap. 2. If clubs don't spend the money they make, what are they supposed to do with it? 3. Nowhere in the article you quoted did it imply that the amount of spending is unsustainable. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18285 Posts
On August 11 2016 23:24 zulu_nation8 wrote: 1. If you're implying that even though the NFL makes more TV money, the players aren't as expensive, then it's because they have a salary cap. 2. If clubs don't spend the money they make, what are they supposed to do with it? 3. Nowhere in the article you quoted did it imply that the amount of spending is unsustainable. A salary cap is a fucking excellent idea and it's stupid that UEFA hasn't done this yet. I guess EU free market regulations get in the way, but it would solve so many problems. | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4148 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On August 11 2016 23:24 zulu_nation8 wrote: 1. If you're implying that even though the NFL makes more TV money, the players aren't as expensive, then it's because they have a salary cap. 2. If clubs don't spend the money they make, what are they supposed to do with it? 3. Nowhere in the article you quoted did it imply that the amount of spending is unsustainable. 1. No im actually not implying that at all. Im just pointing out that all that poetic stuff and story-lines has little to do with money involved. Its an eyeballs and ratings game I am familiar with salary caps thank you. This point was mentioned and dicsussed go back and read the last few pages of the discussion, its silly to jump into a conversation in a vaccum and annoying to address. 2. Clubs can spend money in plenty of ways that are alot more useful. Reducing the intense pressure from ticket pricing is an obvious one. Maybe save it or invest it work towards recovering debt and maybe give back to the communities that actually pay them in the first place ? 3. The article is just information and numbers. You are supposed to make up your own mind on what the numbers mean. Dont get me wrong. I am a huge proponent of power clubs. Without big clubs that dominate the game would never be as big as it is today. But there is that and then there is unsustainable inflation and the rates are staggering. Again "we have more money is very poor reason to spend more money." | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
Again "we have more money is very poor reason to spend more money." This is how businesses work under competition. It would be self-destructive to not invest the money you make. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
They can reinvest in community projects so to speak but i know from a Chelsea point of view we do a load of those already from Asian superstar contests to academies and training centres all around the world. Im pretty sure that is standard for other clubs too. Pretty sure it comes down to 90% of the turnover a club makes goes onto players/staff in terms of wages and transfer fee's. Other 10% is probably shifted between upgrades to facilities/maintenance etc. Just the way the sport is and forever will be. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On August 12 2016 00:49 zulu_nation8 wrote: Whether or not the spending is unsustainable is up to the market and the clubs themselves to decide. You would need to cite some actual data to show why the growth in unsustainable, as well as have a basic understanding of economics. This is how businesses work under competition. It would be self-destructive to not invest the money you make. Yes we all know how awesome unregulated markets are and self correct appropriately. Oh wait. On August 12 2016 00:49 Pandemona wrote: Issue with clubs using it to say cull ticket prices has too many negative effects. One it puts you behind others in terms of turnover in the first place and two there is no need to do it, every club in premier league last season was 95% or above every game in terms of ticket sales. What is cutting the prices by £5er going to achieve in the long run to them making money to keep the FFP ticking over which is what it is still all about to a certain extent anyway. They can reinvest in community projects so to speak but i know from a Chelsea point of view we do a load of those already from Asian superstar contests to academies and training centres all around the world. Im pretty sure that is standard for other clubs too. Pretty sure it comes down to 90% of the turnover a club makes goes onto players/staff in terms of wages and transfer fee's. Other 10% is probably shifted between upgrades to facilities/maintenance etc. Just the way the sport is and forever will be. Yeah I know, and Ive been fine with it in the past, its the market let it deal with it, but the transfer and wage inflation is getting into stupid territory. Or maybe Im just really salty that a Mino Raiola is getting like 30 million as a broker. Somethings definitely wrong here. Footie is like the only thing SKY has going for it. Same for the Star networks in asia and east asia (although cricket deals help quite a bit in India aswell) And Star isnt exclusive so Sky/BBC licensing it out is a pretty big injection for them. UK and European susbscribers arent that much money. So ofcourse the broadcast money is going nowhere, but with all the clubs in so much red just using it to cover yearly spending just seems unsafe to me. Arsenal does it right, sure they dont win nothing but spending isnt really the reason anymore. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On August 12 2016 01:37 zulu_nation8 wrote: In what world is football an unregulated market? This world ? The Government doesnt run football or offer any particularly stringent requirements. Infact they arent even on close to what regular business are required to do. The regulatory authority is the FA. The only thing the FA has done is put in a very nice egalitarian rights distribution model, other than that its do whatever the fuck you want land ? And watch what happens to teams who spend on PL revenue and get relegated. Straight to the stoneage. Debt financing is normal and neccessary. But not at the levels they are at and going toward. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Anyway, Raiola raking in 30million pissed me off too, that isn't even funny how someone can make that much money from a football transfer of a player from one club to another its just absolutely retarded. However transfer figures and numbers always been the issue with football, nothing wrong with the game itself or what we see when they play. However when transfers and agents get into the spotlight its just time to hide face! | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On August 12 2016 01:40 Rebs wrote: This world ? The Government doesnt run football or offer any particularly stringent requirements. Infact they arent even on close to what regular business are required to do. The regulatory authority is the FA. The only thing the FA has done is put in a very nice egalitarian rights distribution model, other than that its do whatever the fuck you want land ? And watch what happens to teams who spend on PL revenue and get relegated. Straight to the stoneage. Debt financing is normal and neccessary. But not at the levels they are at and going toward. What do "regular businesses" have to do that football clubs don't? Regulation is not limited to the government, the FA regulates things like home-grown players, which influences price. Who's talking about debt financing? What does that have to do with anything? | ||
|
LennX
4568 Posts
On August 11 2016 18:25 GTR wrote: + Show Spoiler + https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/763663537256468480 haven't we seen this before Typical "I will promote and play promising youths" Maybe if they cost more than 30m quids youths that were bought. Any homegrown youths are crap tot he current manager. Zzzzz I;m expecting Man Utd to annouce a new feeder | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28792 Posts
On August 12 2016 02:13 LennX wrote: Typical "I will promote and play promising youths" Maybe if they cost more than 30m quids youths that were bought. Any homegrown youths are crap tot he current manager. Zzzzz I;m expecting Man Utd to annouce a new feeder rashford is gonna get plenty playtime I think. But as a world class manager he doesn't care about developing players that don't seem to have world class potential. ;p | ||
|
Skynx
Turkey7150 Posts
 | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28792 Posts
| ||
| ||
