shaun.lawson Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 So you teach the remedial class, no wonder teachers need such long holidays It's quite curious - but most language schools actually have no age limit at all. In theory, it's 18-80 basically. All my students are aged 19-25 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 It's quite curious - but most language schools actually have no age limit at all. In theory, it's 18-80 basically. All my students are aged 19-25 though. And no doubt they're all a lot smarter than me, and I still think you're a jammy bug... Tomorrows lesson: football teams who have put honour before success, or profit, or TV rights... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Three teams actually; the third of which seem highly likely to play the tortoise to the Manchester clubs' hare. Chelsea for the title IMO. And while I broadly agree about competitive balance, there's five or six sides in England who could reasonably consider themselves amongst Europe's elite: albeit one of these clubs aren't actually in European competition this season. I'm not sure that Spain can say the same TBH. You're jumping the gun a bit if you're trying to suggest Spurs and Man City are firmly established amongst Europe's elite. Man City have acheived nothing in Europe and Spurs have had one good season in recent memory. There's been plenty average teams got to the QF of the Champions League. And I assume you are also referring to Liverpool who are a big team in Europe in name only and nothing to do with current form (a bit like Celtic in a way, although I'm not trying to saying Celtic are as big a draw in Europe as Liverpool). I agree, though, that the EPL looks stronger in positions 3 to 6 than Liga (with La Liga much stronger in positions 1 & 2) but neither league is competitive at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 If it wasn't for the amount of money Man utd Liverpool and 1 or 2 others were making the rest wouldn't need to make so much money. The result? FOOTBALL. Now there's a novel idea. Let's put football before profit... Your Utopian "let's put football first" is quaint but ridiculously naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Your Utopian "let's put football first" is quaint but ridiculously naive. Wow, and here we are on a football forum. I'd always put football before the profit of carpet baggers. I expect that you back both Celtic and Rangers in their efforts to grab all the profits in Scottish football too. Personally, I couldn't care less about the profits that Liverpool, or any other team, might be missing out on as a result of the payout of TV rights, or anything else. Liverpool fans were baying for the blood of their club's owners, for quite a few years, because of the way they'd taken their club away from Liverpool FANS, seems like not a lot has changed down Anfield way. God, how naive they must be. We have a foreign owner, but we'll never be big enough to make it worthwhile to treat us as a franchise. One day, though, the big clubs in England will find themselves playing in some European, or world, league, and the only chance a true Lverpool fan will have of seeing his team will be on pay-per-view tv, playing their home games in some far off city. Still, as long as the rich get richer, football's in safe hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I expect that you back both Celtic and Rangers in their efforts to grab all the profits in Scottish football too. I believe you are bang on the money with this assumption, he/she is, if memory serves me right, one of the major supporters of the OF's right to bleed Scottish football dry, because without them we couldn't survive, which is about as feckin ridiculous as saying that if Man U and Chelsea went out of business football in England would cease the next day. It survived while both of them were playing away in lower leagues, without any problems. I'm just not sure how Liverpool, or a fan of Liverpool sees them as a major force going forward, even in English terms. In terms of the evidence which has been put forward about numbers turning up to watch Liverpool in training, I'm sure clubs like Aston Villa and Blackburn, for example, have attracted large, large numbers both to games and training sessions in Asia. I think it is possibly more to do with the unique aspect of witnessing such a sceme live rather than simply a general expression of the overwhelming popularity of Liverpool in Malaysia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavySlaveJambo Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 It's up to the fans of clubs like Liverpool to realise they will, one day, lose their club in all but name unless they realise what is happening and do something about it, ie back every other team in the league to stand up against these carpet baggers, though they will inevitably fail. Liverpool fans were baying for the blood of their club's owners, for quite a few years, because of the way they'd taken their club away from Liverpool FANS, seems like not a lot has changed down Anfield way. Hicks and Gillet were rubbish owners and whats more they turned everyone in the club against each other. They bankrupted the club nearly through a leveraged buy out. 12 months ago today Liverpool were in a game of musical courts as H&G had attempted to breach the contract that gave them a chance to find an owner and on the verge of Administration as a result of Financial Mismanagement. And look at the record of Hicks as the owner of any sports club. Corinthians - nearly bankrupt, Texas Rangers - bankrupt, Dallas Stars, Bankrupt. Liverpool - nearly bankrupt. Anyway todays announcement aside. John Henry is actually in contact with Fans Groups, he has set up a supporters committee to get the views of the fans. Anyway I don't like this scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zibi Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Quite funny how Liverpool still regard themselves as this massive club. Man City have long overtaken them. City get bigger crowds, have a better team and are rapidly improving whereas Liverpool have been going backwards the last few years. Even Spurs for the last two seasons have finished above them. About time the Scousers wakened up and smelt the coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I wish! Though that said, it'd be easy for me to be distracted by the student I mentioned. She's gorgeous. link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I believe you are bang on the money with this assumption, he/she is, if memory serves me right, one of the major supporters of the OF's right to bleed Scottish football dry, because without them we couldn't survive, which is about as feckin ridiculous as saying that if Man U and Chelsea went out of business football in England would cease the next day. It survived while both of them were playing away in lower leagues, without any problems. I'm just not sure how Liverpool, or a fan of Liverpool sees them as a major force going forward, even in English terms. In terms of the evidence which has been put forward about numbers turning up to watch Liverpool in training, I'm sure clubs like Aston Villa and Blackburn, for example, have attracted large, large numbers both to games and training sessions in Asia. I think it is possibly more to do with the unique aspect of witnessing such a sceme live rather than simply a general expression of the overwhelming popularity of Liverpool in Malaysia. You don't know what you're ******* talking about you idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Wow, and here we are on a football forum. I'd always put football before the profit of carpet baggers. I expect that you back both Celtic and Rangers in their efforts to grab all the profits in Scottish football too. Personally, I couldn't care less about the profits that Liverpool, or any other team, might be missing out on as a result of the payout of TV rights, or anything else. Liverpool fans were baying for the blood of their club's owners, for quite a few years, because of the way they'd taken their club away from Liverpool FANS, seems like not a lot has changed down Anfield way. God, how naive they must be. We have a foreign owner, but we'll never be big enough to make it worthwhile to treat us as a franchise. One day, though, the big clubs in England will find themselves playing in some European, or world, league, and the only chance a true Lverpool fan will have of seeing his team will be on pay-per-view tv, playing their home games in some far off city. Still, as long as the rich get richer, football's in safe hands Nice rant. To suggest I have ever backed the infirm over anything is so wide of the mark it's funny. You appear to have no real idea what you are talking about so we'll just leave it at that. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Nice rant. To suggest I have ever backed the infirm over anything is so wide of the mark it's funny. You appear to have no real idea what you are talking about so we'll just leave it at that. Cheers. Another good post, mate, you've added to the thread well with your insightfull comments. I do have an idea about what I'm talking about, I'm talking about football. The more lofty arguements of high finance might escape me but I do not care one jot about the people who run businesses, they are never as clever as they think they are, and have added nothing to the game, just made the players richer and the fans poorer. I actually have no idea about what you're talking about as you've done nothing so far other than debunk my, and other's, posts without backing your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 When I was in South East Asia, I saw Burnley, QPR fans and they all had the tops! Was quite amusing. The biggest draw was Manchester United and Arsenal, with Liverpool and Chelsea also having supports, but there is no doubt that they were all extremely knowledgable about top level English football and it was "The Premiership" they watched. Not just a select few teams. Most of them could name the Wigan starting 11. They just love their football, especially English football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 When I was in South East Asia, I saw Burnley, QPR fans and they all had the tops! Was quite amusing. The biggest draw was Manchester United and Arsenal, with Liverpool and Chelsea also having supports, but there is no doubt that they were all extremely knowledgable about top level English football and it was "The Premiership" they watched. Not just a select few teams. Most of them could name the Wigan starting 11. They just love their football, especially English football. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRC HMFC Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Another good post, mate, you've added to the thread well with your insightfull comments. I do have an idea about what I'm talking about, I'm talking about football. The more lofty arguements of high finance might escape me but I do not care one jot about the people who run businesses, they are never as clever as they think they are, and have added nothing to the game, just made the players richer and the fans poorer. I actually have no idea about what you're talking about as you've done nothing so far other than debunk my, and other's, posts without backing your comments. I agree that you are being ridiculously naive here, in a perfect world it would all be about the football and profits would play a very small part, however this is quite clearly not the case so quite frankly the arguments you are making are for lack of a better word, pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I think all clubs should be able to sell their own rights, it would give all clubs other than the OF more money in Scotland. If the TV cams chose to go only to Glasgow, fine, their crowds would fall. When we play OF price - very high. When we play others, low cost to suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I agree that you are being ridiculously naive here, in a perfect world it would all be about the football and profits would play a very small part, however this is quite clearly not the case so quite frankly the arguments you are making are for lack of a better word, pointless. Another addition to the thread, and just as pointless. I might be wrong to hope that football remains the most important thing on a football forum, but what is the point you are making? Other than to say I am wrong you are not adding anything nor saying why I am wrong. I am not saying that money will not rule, nor am I saying that what Liverpool are wanting will not happen. My point is that it would be wrong to happen. As I said in an earlier post, if Liverpool feel they are in such demand, and the rest of the EPL is holding them back, why don't they resign now and see how successfull they'd be without the rest of the league, the league that has made them so popular in the first place? Or do they, like the OF, want to hold on to what they've got until something better comes along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locky Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Can't see them launching a channel in the far east for all the Wigan supporting locals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydney Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I did a check on last season's income for the top 12 EPL teams, then calculated what each team would have received if the same money was distributed using the SPL formula. (I only used the top 12 teams to make the SPL comparison) Now what would be the long term implications of the likes of Man Utd receiving over ?100M a year and other teams from 4th downwards receiving less than the currently do? SPL or La Liga Mark II I'd suggest. 1. Man Utd.......60,429,052...105,917,263 2. Chelsea...... 57,740,444.....93,456,409 3. Man City..... 55,534,799.....59,189,059 4. Arsenal....... 56,226,932.....52,958,632 5. Spurs..........53,055,361..... 49,843,418 6. Liverpool.... 55,196,383..... 46,728,204 7. Everton...... 49,609,997..... 43,612,991 8. Fulham....... 47,404,352..... 40,497,777 9. Aston Villa.. .49,062,411.... 37,382,563 10. Sunderland. 46,373,803... 34,267,350 11. West Brom. 45,134,084.... 31,152,136 12. Newcastle.. 47,275,106.... 28,036,923 That is a terrific bit of analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world_3 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Up there with the biggest amount of shite I have ever read on here. Pre-season, Liverpool went to Malaysia. They had 38,000 fans to watch training and 80,000 to watch a game. Well I was over in the far east earlier this year and nobody wanted to talk about Liverpool, it was all about ManU and Chelsea. Take a trip and see for yourself, it's a lot of fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRC HMFC Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Another addition to the thread, and just as pointless. I might be wrong to hope that football remains the most important thing on a football forum, but what is the point you are making? Other than to say I am wrong you are not adding anything nor saying why I am wrong. I am not saying that money will not rule, nor am I saying that what Liverpool are wanting will not happen. My point is that it would be wrong to happen. As I said in an earlier post, if Liverpool feel they are in such demand, and the rest of the EPL is holding them back, why don't they resign now and see how successfull they'd be without the rest of the league, the league that has made them so popular in the first place? Or do they, like the OF, want to hold on to what they've got until something better comes along? If you had read my other posts on the thread then you would see that i did make my point, i stated that in my opinion, Liverpool should be getting more television money than the likes of Wolves, Wigan etc. As someone kindly posted, Liverpool were on TV 23 times last season and Wolves and Wigan were on 10 times. How is it fair that they get the same amount as Liverpool? And all this stuff about if this changed there would be no league is ridiculous, if Wigan etc were that outraged at the new potential deal then there would be plenty of teams willing to take their place whilst making less television money than what Liverpool would be getting. That was quite simply my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I did a check on last season's income for the top 12 EPL teams, then calculated what each team would have received if the same money was distributed using the SPL formula. (I only used the top 12 teams to make the SPL comparison) Now what would be the long term implications of the likes of Man Utd receiving over ?100M a year and other teams from 4th downwards receiving less than the currently do? SPL or La Liga Mark II I'd suggest. 1. Man Utd.......60,429,052...105,917,263 2. Chelsea...... 57,740,444.....93,456,409 3. Man City..... 55,534,799.....59,189,059 4. Arsenal....... 56,226,932.....52,958,632 5. Spurs..........53,055,361..... 49,843,418 6. Liverpool.... 55,196,383..... 46,728,204 7. Everton...... 49,609,997..... 43,612,991 8. Fulham....... 47,404,352..... 40,497,777 9. Aston Villa.. .49,062,411.... 37,382,563 10. Sunderland. 46,373,803... 34,267,350 11. West Brom. 45,134,084.... 31,152,136 12. Newcastle.. 47,275,106.... 28,036,923 Surprised more people haven't commented on this, shows you the staggering way the SPL is set up to benefit Rangers and Celtic (so long as they keep finishing in the top two, only once in the SPL's history has that not happened.) Say what you like about the English Premier league, but the money is split in a fair way (its only oligarchs and billionaire owners who keep others ahead.) I mean there is no excuse for the top 2 having so much more. Are the above just tv incomes or are they mixed with gate recipets, either way the difference is stark at how imbalanced finances are in the SPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Surprised more people haven't commented on this, shows you the staggering way the SPL is set up to benefit Rangers and Celtic (so long as they keep finishing in the top two, only once in the SPL's history has that not happened.) Say what you like about the English Premier league, but the money is split in a fair way (its only oligarchs and billionaire owners who keep others ahead.) I mean there is no excuse for the top 2 having so much more. Are the above just tv incomes or are they mixed with gate recipets, either way the difference is stark at how imbalanced finances are in the SPL. It's the EPL split of the TV money and merit payments, similar to that of the SPL. The original data can be found here. http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/PL-payments-2010-11.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 It's the EPL split of the TV money and merit payments, similar to that of the SPL. The original data can be found here. http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/PL-payments-2010-11.jpg SO how does it work out that some teams have finished above others with less tv money and merit payments? Do teams get paid more if they appear on tv more times? Just worked out the difference between the SPL teams, 2nd place bring 13% less income then 1st, 3rd place brings 36% less income then 2nd, 4th place brings 11% income then 3rd place. 3rd place gets 44% less income then 1st, 4th place gets over 50% less income then 1st place. In England it is 2nd place brings 5% less income then 1st, 3rd place brings 3.5% less income then 2nd place, 3rd brings 8.3% less income than 1st (with 4th place similar.) Even if you were to argue something a bit more proportinal (so as the EPL is a 20 team league, so 2nd = 3rd, 3rd= 5th and 4th = 7th) then first to the new second is 8.3%, second to third is now 3.5%, and third to fourth is 7.5%, first to third is now 13% and first to fourth is 18%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 SO how does it work out that some teams have finished above others with less tv money and merit payments? Do teams get paid more if they appear on tv more times? Check the "facility fee" and "live" games columns in the original data. That's the variable element. So yes, they do get more if they appear in more live games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 If you had read my other posts on the thread then you would see that i did make my point, i stated that in my opinion, Liverpool should be getting more television money than the likes of Wolves, Wigan etc. As someone kindly posted, Liverpool were on TV 23 times last season and Wolves and Wigan were on 10 times. How is it fair that they get the same amount as Liverpool? And all this stuff about if this changed there would be no league is ridiculous, if Wigan etc were that outraged at the new potential deal then there would be plenty of teams willing to take their place whilst making less television money than what Liverpool would be getting. That was quite simply my point. Sorry for saying you had not made your point, but if you'd referred to it I'd have checked it out before replying. How many of these Liverpool games that were covered by TV were away from home? Probably at least half of them. Would you have Liverpool make more money out of those games than the home team who are hosting the TV company and taking a cut in gate receipts? If you were a director of one of those clubs would you just hold up your hands and say alright? If Liverpool's brand name is so big worldwide why don't they just resign from the EPL and go on perpetual world tours selling 80,000 tickets and the tv rights wherever they go? That might seem nonsense but the guys who own Liverpool, and the other top teams, wouldn't baulk from doing just that if they thought it would make them richer, and they could pull it off. In each case the football club is just an investment to them, an investment from which they want maximum return. The point is, this unequal share of the tv money would only lead to the top teams moving further ahead while the rest move backwards and it becomes easier for the top teams to leave to form a European league. This has been suggested more than once in the media even before this announcement by Liverpool. You would then, almost certainly, find that gradually more and more 'home' games would be played anywhere in the world willing to pay exhorbitant amounts for their own economic and political reasons. This has also been mooted by media commentators. I doubt anything like this will happen in my lifetime but what the Liverpool board are proposing will only hasten it. If you think that helping to make the gap between the top and the bottom teams grow won't bring about drastic and damaging changes to the EPL, whether or not as dramatic as those I suggest, then it is you who is naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRC HMFC Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Sorry for saying you had not made your point, but if you'd referred to it I'd have checked it out before replying. How many of these Liverpool games that were covered by TV were away from home? Probably at least half of them. Would you have Liverpool make more money out of those games than the home team who are hosting the TV company and taking a cut in gate receipts? If you were a director of one of those clubs would you just hold up your hands and say alright? If Liverpool's brand name is so big worldwide why don't they just resign from the EPL and go on perpetual world tours selling 80,000 tickets and the tv rights wherever they go? That might seem nonsense but the guys who own Liverpool, and the other top teams, wouldn't baulk from doing just that if they thought it would make them richer, and they could pull it off. In each case the football club is just an investment to them, an investment from which they want maximum return. The point is, this unequal share of the tv money would only lead to the top teams moving further ahead while the rest move backwards and it becomes easier for the top teams to leave to form a European league. This has been suggested more than once in the media even before this announcement by Liverpool. You would then, almost certainly, find that gradually more and more 'home' games would be played anywhere in the world willing to pay exhorbitant amounts for their own economic and political reasons. This has also been mooted by media commentators. I doubt anything like this will happen in my lifetime but what the Liverpool board are proposing will only hasten it. If you think that helping to make the gap between the top and the bottom teams grow won't bring about drastic and damaging changes to the EPL, whether or not as dramatic as those I suggest, then it is you who is naive. Firstly, i apologise for not linking some of my earlier posts. You make some good points i am not disupting that, my point was however and i stand by it, if Liverpool are on TV a lot more times than these teams and having their kick off's moved around a lot more than the smaller teams, i just can't see what justifies your Wigans, Swansea's etc to be getting an equal share of the money, the money should only be split evenly if everybody is on TV the same amount of times, as there is no sign of that happening, i don't see why Liverpool shouldn't be claiming they deserve more money. They are a far bigger draw to foreign investers than Wigan are so if they did decide to leave the Premier League as you suggest, the smaller teams would get less money anyway because there wouldn't be as big an offer for television rights without clubs like Liverpool, Manchester Utd competing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyjamboDerbyshire Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Firstly, i apologise for not linking some of my earlier posts. You make some good points i am not disupting that, my point was however and i stand by it, if Liverpool are on TV a lot more times than these teams and having their kick off's moved around a lot more than the smaller teams, i just can't see what justifies your Wigans, Swansea's etc to be getting an equal share of the money, the money should only be split evenly if everybody is on TV the same amount of times, as there is no sign of that happening, i don't see why Liverpool shouldn't be claiming they deserve more money. They are a far bigger draw to foreign investers than Wigan are so if they did decide to leave the Premier League as you suggest, the smaller teams would get less money anyway because there wouldn't be as big an offer for television rights without clubs like Liverpool, Manchester Utd competing. I would agree that it does seem unfair that Liverpool etc do have more matches moved than other teams, but that is no more than an inconvenience to the clubs, perhaps not even that. They are more than happy to have games moved to Sundays etc when playing in Europe ie when it suits them. It is the fans who are inconvenienced most and I doubt the boardroom really takes notice of them, except when it suits or in press releases to make them still sound like 'a team of the people'. The Wigans etc are also inconvenienced when matchdates are changed to suit the big guns in European competitions, yet they don't bleat about it and claim compensation. The OP asked if the EPL is about to go the same way as La Liga and the SPL, the answer would certainly be yes, if Liverpool's proposal goes ahead, though the reality is that it will come about eventually regardless. A delay, though, might allow teams like Spurs time to join the elite to create a top 6 or 7 which would still leave a pretty competative league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.