So, Big Philly G wants change....

[Puskas]

Is it a good idea for the Prem

I guess it probably is - entertainment, which is what its sold as to those that don't realise it's all about winning, should be greater due to a reduced fear factor of the consequences of relegation (though I would pretty much closed shop it at 2 divisions)

Is it more entertaining, though? A load of clubs playing out what are effectively the same as meaningless end-of-season matches. The fear factor is part of what makes it worth watching - would you rather watch a relegation scrap or two teams fighting it out for who gets to finish 10th and 11th?

And anyway, for those that want entertainment, there's always the circus...

[BWFC_Insane]

Is it a good idea for the Prem

I guess it probably is - entertainment, which is what its sold as to those that don't realise it's all about winning, should be greater due to a reduced fear factor of the consequences of relegation (though I would pretty much closed shop it at 2 divisions)

Is it more entertaining, though? A load of clubs playing out what are effectively the same as meaningless end-of-season matches. The fear factor is part of what makes it worth watching - would you rather watch a relegation scrap or two teams fighting it out for who gets to finish 10th and 11th?

And anyway, for those that want entertainment, there's always the circus...

You might have more entertaining matches, say for sake of argument Brum are at home to Liverpool but are near the bottom of PL1. Brum might "go for a win" as even if they lose and go down as a result it won't be the end of the world for them as they'd get the same in PL2 and would have a decent chance of promotion and probably don't want to "stay" and struggle in the top league. So you might get a thriller whereas now you'd almost certainly in that situaiton end up with Brum keeping it tight trying to nick a 1-0 or a point.

However, there is the risk Puskas talks of where two teams near the bottom of PL1 might simply not care about getting relegated and in fact some teams may actively try to come up go down, come up go down in order to mean they are always competitive but don't have the pressures of trying to compete against the big boys every year.

[CAPSLOCK]

Is it a good idea for the Prem

I guess it probably is - entertainment, which is what its sold as to those that don't realise it's all about winning, should be greater due to a reduced fear factor of the consequences of relegation (though I would pretty much closed shop it at 2 divisions)

Is it more entertaining, though? A load of clubs playing out what are effectively the same as meaningless end-of-season matches. The fear factor is part of what makes it worth watching - would you rather watch a relegation scrap or two teams fighting it out for who gets to finish 10th and 11th?

And anyway, for those that want entertainment, there's always the circus...

and the palladium

[blurred]

http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/Fears-for-tiers.php

[William the White]

http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/Fears-for-tiers.php

That's majoring on the already rejected Rangers/celtic invitation, which is the easy target.

Does the FSF have a view on the two-tier prem league proposal? I did read the line about four divisions called one two three and four, but presume the writer was just being facetious...

[FaninOz]

I thought that it was a good idea when it was first proposed and still do.

The objections that are are being raised against a two level Premiership are the same as those raised when the Premiership was first proposed.

We also have the top Welsh teams in the English League so why not the top Scottish ones as well, or the top N Irish ones for that matter. Those are all part of the UK., and also remember that Berwick play in the Scottish league but are an English club, so there is precidence for the proposal. Something needs to be done to level the playing field as the status quo isn't sustainable with just a few teams being able to win the English Premiership and the Scottish Premiership because the the buying power of those few teams.

However, if the top English teams don't like whatever is finally approved by the majority in England they will leave and join a European league with the likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Inter and AC Milan, Juventus, etc etc.

That may be the best way forward in any case as without a salary cap and balancing of finances across all the teams in the English leagues there isn't enough money around to sustain 92 professional teams in the English leagues.

[Tombwfc]

Is it a good idea for the Prem

I guess it probably is - entertainment, which is what its sold as to those that don't realise it's all about winning, should be greater due to a reduced fear factor of the consequences of relegation (though I would pretty much closed shop it at 2 divisions)

Is it more entertaining, though? A load of clubs playing out what are effectively the same as meaningless end-of-season matches. The fear factor is part of what makes it worth watching - would you rather watch a relegation scrap or two teams fighting it out for who gets to finish 10th and 11th?

And anyway, for those that want entertainment, there's always the circus...

You might have more entertaining matches, say for sake of argument Brum are at home to Liverpool but are near the bottom of PL1. Brum might "go for a win" as even if they lose and go down as a result it won't be the end of the world for them as they'd get the same in PL2 and would have a decent chance of promotion and probably don't want to "stay" and struggle in the top league. So you might get a thriller whereas now you'd almost certainly in that situaiton end up with Brum keeping it tight trying to nick a 1-0 or a point.

However, there is the risk Puskas talks of where two teams near the bottom of PL1 might simply not care about getting relegated and in fact some teams may actively try to come up go down, come up go down in order to mean they are always competitive but don't have the pressures of trying to compete against the big boys every year.

Why would they go for a win? What'd be the point? Your saying it makes no difference either way, so why waste the effort? Everyone is still going to get paid. For everyone outside the top 8 or so teams the league becomes just a long set of friendlies.

Like Puskas says, which was more exciting - us Vs 'Boro in 2003 or us Vs Hull last season?

Although it's good to see Gartside looking out for our interests, the current system is miles better. It works in cycles. We're enjoying a good spell, eventually we'll get relegated and have to start again and someone else will take our place. Football has always worked like that, just on a smaller scale money-wise.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

Alternatively they could just re-evaluate the distribution of TV money as it is, stop the ridiculous "pay per match" fee that skews the distribution even further and tell the big clubs to nick off if they don't like it. That way all clubs, from Aldershot to Yeovil, will get a sustainable amount of money, the big clubs get a bigger slice of the pie through prize money and the financial gulf that is around now and that will just move down places will be small from 1st to 92nd.

Oh, and I'd ban the practice of outside investment for clubs. Sponsorship, advertising, transfer fees, prize money. Those are the only revenue streams, and only money from these revenue streams can be used to run the club. If you can't operate within these means, tough. I'm sure clubs would find loopholes around it, but it would sure mean clubs being run a lot better than they are now.

[Tombwfc]

Alternatively they could just re-evaluate the distribution of TV money as it is, stop the ridiculous "pay per match" fee that skews the distribution even further and tell the big clubs to nick off if they don't like it. That way all clubs, from Aldershot to Yeovil, will get a sustainable amount of money, the big clubs get a bigger slice of the pie through prize money and the financial gulf that is around now and that will just move down places will be small from 1st to 92nd.

Oh, and I'd ban the practice of outside investment for clubs. Sponsorship, advertising, transfer fees, prize money. Those are the only revenue streams, and only money from these revenue streams can be used to run the club. If you can't operate within these means, tough. I'm sure clubs would find loopholes around it, but it would sure mean clubs being run a lot better than they are now.

IIRC that type of thing was suggested before, but like you say there are loopholes around it. Abramovich paying £40mil for his Chelsea season ticket for example.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

Alternatively they could just re-evaluate the distribution of TV money as it is, stop the ridiculous "pay per match" fee that skews the distribution even further and tell the big clubs to nick off if they don't like it. That way all clubs, from Aldershot to Yeovil, will get a sustainable amount of money, the big clubs get a bigger slice of the pie through prize money and the financial gulf that is around now and that will just move down places will be small from 1st to 92nd.

Oh, and I'd ban the practice of outside investment for clubs. Sponsorship, advertising, transfer fees, prize money. Those are the only revenue streams, and only money from these revenue streams can be used to run the club. If you can't operate within these means, tough. I'm sure clubs would find loopholes around it, but it would sure mean clubs being run a lot better than they are now.

IIRC that type of thing was suggested before, but like you say there are loopholes around it. Abramovich paying £40mil for his Chelsea season ticket for example.

I'm sure that can stamped out through rules on ticket pricing.

I also neglected to include the telly money and interest on the list of revenue streams.

I don't see the need for sweeping radical changes to the format of the game, which is what the Premier League/Premier League 2/Franchising/Closed shop idea is doing. It doesn't even need any rebranding, because you see the commercial success the English game has overseas. Just a little more common sense is required when it comes to the distribution of money.

[Dujon]

Alternatively they could just re-evaluate the distribution of TV money as it is, stop the ridiculous "pay per match" fee that skews the distribution even further and tell the big clubs to nick off if they don't like it.

I agree with you, K..B..b. In fact I've been having a think about the whole thing. Not for very long, mind, but a think. On the point quoted above surely the payment of monies to the F.A. by television stations should be used by that organisation to further the game? If so, then all the monies received should go into a collective pot and be distributed on a pro-rata basis to each club in the various leagues, less a percentage allocated particularly to support the non-league clubs. In other words, no matter how good a club is nor how bad it is, it receives exactly the same amount of revenue from the pool as does the club that wins the Premiership.

Don't bring up the furphy about televised games reducing ground attendances . . . it isn't so. I surmise that those who pay to watch a televised games are, like me, people who can't get to the game - for whatever reason - or can't afford it. Those who watch football on a channel other than free-to-air are in fact supporting the game whether or not that was the prime reason for them paying for such a service.

As FaninOz mentioned earlier in this thread, a salary cap would be a boon to the game (well, I think so). Such capping of wages and signing on fees would be an overall expenditure for a club and not confined to individual players. By that I mean that a club could lash out a bit of dosh on one player but that action would limit the payments and transfer fees available for the rest of the squad.

I mentioned transfer fees. They should be abolished. By the same token, if player and club agree to a transfer then so be it. If not, then the player and the club should be bound by the original contract. Signing on fees could be a problem although one which is easy to overcome. The receiving club pays all relocation expenses for the player but not housing costs (that should be part of the player's pondering prior to signing a contract) although assistance in finding suitable accommodation would be just.

Like anyone who moves his allegiance from one company to another and which involves the changing of residence or even schools for children then that is the employees decision and problem.

[blurred]

Alternatively they could just re-evaluate the distribution of TV money as it is, stop the ridiculous "pay per match" fee that skews the distribution even further and tell the big clubs to nick off if they don't like it.

Great idea, let's tell the big clubs to bin off the collective bargaining agreement and everyone can look after themselves, shall we? You think that the 'per match' fee skews the distribution of money? Let's see how much Manchester United and Bolton would get for their TV deals if they negotiated them separately. While you might think it iniquitous, I'd be amazed if Bolton would get anywhere near the £18m they got for TV in 06/07, for instance, and the fact that United got 'only' £5m or so more that year doesn't seem all that 'ridiculous' or 'skewed' to me.

There's a great deal that can be done for financial regulation in football, and redistribution of wealth, but I really think you're barking up the wrong tree if it's the facility fee that you're going after. Get rid of the TV system in place now, and the situation will get ten times worse. Juventus get more in their TV deal than the bottom 5 clubs put together in Italy. The amount that Real Madrid get from TV is staggering. Remove the system that we have in England and it'd get a great deal worse, not better.

[BWFC_Insane]

Alternatively they could just re-evaluate the distribution of TV money as it is, stop the ridiculous "pay per match" fee that skews the distribution even further and tell the big clubs to nick off if they don't like it.

Great idea, let's tell the big clubs to bin off the collective bargaining agreement and everyone can look after themselves, shall we? You think that the 'per match' fee skews the distribution of money? Let's see how much Manchester United and Bolton would get for their TV deals if they negotiated them separately. While you might think it iniquitous, I'd be amazed if Bolton would get anywhere near the £18m they got for TV in 06/07, for instance, and the fact that United got 'only' £5m or so more that year doesn't seem all that 'ridiculous' or 'skewed' to me.

There's a great deal that can be done for financial regulation in football, and redistribution of wealth, but I really think you're barking up the wrong tree if it's the facility fee that you're going after. Get rid of the TV system in place now, and the situation will get ten times worse. Juventus get more in their TV deal than the bottom 5 clubs put together in Italy. The amount that Real Madrid get from TV is staggering. Remove the system that we have in England and it'd get a great deal worse.

All clubs should get an exactly equal share of the total "TV money pot".

A wage cap and transfer spending cap should be introduced. A maximum squad size should be introduced, though this is happening to an extent.

Clubs should not be allowed to change managers mid-season.

Thats just for starters.

[seanworth]

Alternatively they could just re-evaluate the distribution of TV money as it is, stop the ridiculous "pay per match" fee that skews the distribution even further and tell the big clubs to nick off if they don't like it.

Great idea, let's tell the big clubs to bin off the collective bargaining agreement and everyone can look after themselves, shall we? You think that the 'per match' fee skews the distribution of money? Let's see how much Manchester United and Bolton would get for their TV deals if they negotiated them separately. While you might think it iniquitous, I'd be amazed if Bolton would get anywhere near the £18m they got for TV in 06/07, for instance, and the fact that United got 'only' £5m or so more that year doesn't seem all that 'ridiculous' or 'skewed' to me.

There's a great deal that can be done for financial regulation in football, and redistribution of wealth, but I really think you're barking up the wrong tree if it's the facility fee that you're going after. Get rid of the TV system in place now, and the situation will get ten times worse. Juventus get more in their TV deal than the bottom 5 clubs put together in Italy. The amount that Real Madrid get from TV is staggering. Remove the system that we have in England and it'd get a great deal worse, not better.

Why not just share the money equally between all of the clubs regardless of which team gets televised more. This is how it is done in the NFL and it works great and the league's popularity within N.A. has grown accordingly.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

Alternatively they could just re-evaluate the distribution of TV money as it is, stop the ridiculous "pay per match" fee that skews the distribution even further and tell the big clubs to nick off if they don't like it.

Great idea, let's tell the big clubs to bin off the collective bargaining agreement and everyone can look after themselves, shall we? You think that the 'per match' fee skews the distribution of money? Let's see how much Manchester United and Bolton would get for their TV deals if they negotiated them separately. While you might think it iniquitous, I'd be amazed if Bolton would get anywhere near the £18m they got for TV in 06/07, for instance, and the fact that United got 'only' £5m or so more that year doesn't seem all that 'ridiculous' or 'skewed' to me.

There's a great deal that can be done for financial regulation in football, and redistribution of wealth, but I really think you're barking up the wrong tree if it's the facility fee that you're going after. Get rid of the TV system in place now, and the situation will get ten times worse. Juventus get more in their TV deal than the bottom 5 clubs put together in Italy. The amount that Real Madrid get from TV is staggering. Remove the system that we have in England and it'd get a great deal worse, not better.

Read what I wrote again, and tell me where I demanded every man for himself?

Where did I advocate the binning of collective bargaining? Clubs who are chosen to be shown more get paid a few hundred thousand pounds for being shown. That means that the big clubs automatically get given £10 million more than clubs who are only shown once per season. Money skewed before a ball is kicked.

And that's just within clubs in the Premiership. God help those in the Championship, League One and League Two, who share a pittance between them if we continue the way we are in five or ten years.

[potter1989bwfc]

Its just another excuse to keep us in the league so he don't have to sack our wonderful brilliant manager Gary Megson

[blurred]

Why not just share the money equally between all of the clubs regardless of which team gets televised more. This is how it is done in the NFL and it works great and the league's popularity within N.A. has grown accordingly.

Simply, because the Premier League doesn't own the clubs, and the NFL does.

The situation we have at the moment in the Premier League is ridiculously egalitarian compared to most/all European leagues.

[seanworth]

Why not just share the money equally between all of the clubs regardless of which team gets televised more. This is how it is done in the NFL and it works great and the league's popularity within N.A. has grown accordingly.

Simply, because the Premier League doesn't own the clubs, and the NFL does.

The situation we have at the moment in the Premier League is ridiculously egalitarian compared to most/all European leagues.

Some clarification please. The way you have worded this, for an obvious example, the Glazers do not own the Tampa Bay Buccaneers but in fact they are owned by the NFL?

I agree that the NFL has strong control over the league, and much more so than other sports, but then watching football (yes the soccer variety), and all the bullshit that goes along with it, I can't help but admire the way the NFL is run.

[blurred]

Some clarification please. The way you have worded this, for an obvious example, the Glazers do not own the Tampa Bay Buccaneers but in fact they are owned by the NFL?

They are franchises. The bloke down the road owns the franchise for Subway, but ultimately has to do what the bosses from Subway say (with a little give and take here and there). Glazer owns the Buccaneers, but is bound but what the Commissioner of the NFL says. Same with MLB, NHL... Ultimately the US sports franchises are answerable to the league. This isn't the case in the Premier League - the clubs set the rules, not the league, and it's up to the clubs to change them (14 club chairmen have to agree to a change in Premier League rules).

I agree that the NFL has strong control over the league, and much more so than other sports, but then watching football (yes the soccer variety), and all the bullshit that goes along with it, I can't help but admire the way the NFL is run.

Almost total.

[seanworth]

Some clarification please. The way you have worded this, for an obvious example, the Glazers do not own the Tampa Bay Buccaneers but in fact they are owned by the NFL?

They are franchises. The bloke down the road owns the franchise for Subway, but ultimately has to do what the bosses from Subway say (with a little give and take here and there). Glazer owns the Buccaneers, but is bound but what the Commissioner of the NFL says. Same with MLB, NHL... Ultimately the US sports franchises are answerable to the league. This isn't the case in the Premier League - the clubs set the rules, not the league, and it's up to the clubs to change them (14 club chairmen have to agree to a change in Premier League rules).

I agree that the NFL has strong control over the league, and much more so than other sports, but then watching football (yes the soccer variety), and all the bullshit that goes along with it, I can't help but admire the way the NFL is run.

Almost total.

Which system do you prefer?