The Footie Thread

  • Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
25,169
Location
Watford
Visit site
Took my nephew to many Tigers matches when he was growing up in the same way that my dad took me to Tigers games when my brother and I were kids. Used to be a great family day on boxing day when the Tigers played the Barbarians each year. Kids everywhere, families sharing packed lunches, soup and plenty of hip flasks going around. Loved it. What was great wat that when my brother bought his season ticket, his son got a free one up to the age of 9. That helped produce the next generation of season ticket holders.
That all sounds nice but the fact is I might as well be watching kabaddi or quidditch for all I know of what's going on on the pitch. :LOL:
 

Fade and Die

Medal Winner
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
3,809
Location
Hornchurch
Visit site
This is probably the way it is for a lot blokes when they were young until marriage and kids came along, like Bdill93 my lad had kits before he was born and I dreamt of the father/son going the match as I had with my Dad.

Unfortunately the school he went to down south, were I was based, was a Rugby school and when moving up here we ended up as ST holders at Newcastle Falcons for 5 years as that was the sport he loved.:eek:


Exactly, I went (and still go) with my dad, now I also take my eldest son, he has asbergers/autism and normally shuns noise but at football he gets caught up in it and loves a good swear at the ref/opposition/noble ;) I could now start going to away games but tbh I can't be arsed.

My younger lad used to come as well but he sadly drifted away from it, preferring a more digital life!:cry:
 

BiMGuy

LIV Bot, (But Not As Big As Mel) ?
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
6,383
Visit site
My lad has zero interest in watching live football. And to be fair to him, a lot of professional football is boring compared to his games, or watching the village Sunday team.

I’ve taken him to a few games, it’s an expensive day out just to listen to angry men shouting nonsense.
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,474
Location
Rutland
Visit site
Not a chance, football is much better now than it was years ago for me. As I grew up as a kid in the 90's, my only chance to watch the football was Match of the Day (in which my club was involved), although I loved Football Italia or the odd international game, or the FA Cup as I got to see live football.

OK, the expansion of broadcasting has had some negative side effects, such as diluting the impact of the FA Cup. However, I would not swap it for going back in time. Personally, I look forward to the weekends, where I get to play golf on a Saturday morning, then get back home to watch lunch time kick off, Soccer Saturday and then the evening kick off. Sundays pretty much the same. Football has become a bigger part of my life, whereas had it stayed the same as it was in the 90's, I'd generally only have Match of the Day (and it would be true to say I would have much less exposure to my club compared to a match going fan). I'm sure it was even worse going back before the 90's.

It is probably only some match going fans that broadcasting negatively effects, because they do not consistently get 3pm kick offs on a Saturday. However, they are probably a very very small percentage of a fan base, especially at clubs in which get a lot of TV coverage. However, TV will also have its benefits even for them, as they get to watch their team if they cannot make a game. And, not to mention the money it helps generate.

Mind you, I would still like to see the odd game on an atrocious pitch where the ball can bounce over Tim Flowers head. Yes, I know it is actually better we do not have those days, but it was funny to watch players sliding all over the place, and the odd cheeky headbutt or slap from Vinnie Jones :)

This is what I find interesting (again admitting only occasional football follower, rugby is my sport). For all the complaints about owners, TV money, kick off times, player wages etc, few would want to go back to the days of only 3.00 kick offs, limited football on TV, home grown players over global superstars and clubs owned and run by a local businessman who has done well for himself and needs the club to be relatively self supporting rather than a global billionaire or company pumping cash or debt into the club.
 

Liverbirdie

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,148
Location
liverpool
Visit site
The vicious circle of the Telly money that was created when the clubs left the Football League to create the Prem

The income is around £70-100mil from the Prem and all clubs need that money to pay the wages of the players that know the money is there

take away rhw sky money and the clubs will need to find other ways to bring in money - ticket prices ? Merchandise etc - it would be a big financial hole to fill
The fans at the stadium and on the sofa want to see their club play the best football and have the best players - the Prem has many of them because of the Sky money.

And I don’t think it’s going to change - Sky when they change dates etc they look at the worldwide Telly viewer - early kick offs for the Far and Middle East and late kick offs for the USA etc - those areas have paid billions to broadcast the games. The fan walking into the stadium doesn’t get a thought and the clubs don’t have the power to push it back because they know they need the Sky money

All this started with the Prem and Telly deals and then the CL changes and their Telly deals etc

Fans want the best players - but that requires money to pay for those players. Never ending vicious circle and how the Premier League is a worldwide league now

It probably wont change, because its gone too far down the line, but you can reel it back in a lot.

I would estimate that 80% of the extra money has gone in the players pockets, with 10% going on facilities (which did need upgrading) and 10% on superfluous stuff like directors of football, extra physios, statisticians and all manner of extra staff, like throw in coaches.

Now that most facilities are very good, put the players back on 10k a week, 7-8 games at 3pm with a 5.30 saturday, 2pm and 4pm Sunday games.

Sorry, but players like Maddison buying a 6k backpack do my head in.
 

Liverbirdie

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,148
Location
liverpool
Visit site
OK, but if it was that simple, why is it not done?

That is a genuine question, I do not know the answer. I am pretty sure Sky do not dictate fixtures simply to annoy fans. So, if it was that easy, surely they would just do that. I assume they have specific criteria they must meet, such as the minimum amount of games each club has to be shown on TV. Perhaps the Premier League themselves have a responsibility? For example, do they draw the original fixture list and then Sky need to work around that?

It is done to an extent, but not enough.
 
D

Deleted member 15344

Guest
It probably wont change, because its gone too far down the line, but you can reel it back in a lot.

I would estimate that 80% of the extra money has gone in the players pockets, with 10% going on facilities (which did need upgrading) and 10% on superfluous stuff like directors of football, extra physios, statisticians and all manner of extra staff, like throw in coaches.

Now that most facilities are very good, put the players back on 10k a week, 7-8 games at 3pm with a 5.30 saturday, 2pm and 4pm Sunday games.

Sorry, but players like Maddison buying a 6k backpack do my head in.

You are right about the players - but there is no way they would go back to £10k a week unless there was a world wide cap. Players would just walk away to teams in Italy , France etc
 
D

Deleted member 16999

Guest
This is what I find interesting (again admitting only occasional football follower, rugby is my sport). For all the complaints about owners, TV money, kick off times, player wages etc, few would want to go back to the days of only 3.00 kick offs, limited football on TV, home grown players over global superstars and clubs owned and run by a local businessman who has done well for himself and needs the club to be relatively self supporting rather than a global billionaire or company pumping cash or debt into the club.
No one doubts there are improvements in the modern game, but I’d argue more has been lost, the gap between the teams is now massive, the chances of a modern day Wimbledon are virtually nil.

Sadly it’s no longer a Sport, more a business, yes we have to accept it, but it doesn’t mean we have to like it.

It’s probably an age thing, but those that grew up in the 70’s & 80’s may think the game has changed for the worst.
 

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
26,693
Location
Northumberland
Visit site
No one doubts there are improvements in the modern game, but I’d argue more has been lost, the gap between the teams is now massive, the chances of a modern day Wimbledon are virtually nil.

Sadly it’s no longer a Sport, more a business, yes we have to accept it, but it doesn’t mean we have to like it.

It’s probably an age thing, but those that grew up in the 70’s & 80’s may think the game has changed for the worst.
I was chatting about Norwich with my lad last night and checked when Delia had bought them, 96 as it happens, 52 or 53% share. Anyway I then found a good Canaries page looking at their accounts for the last season, or perhaps one before. Nothing iffy, no secret slush fund, all good. What did catch my eye was that the estimated wealth of Delia and her hubby was £30m. Nice but not PL. Had Lampard been given the job his bank balance would have been higher than the owners o_O. Think of the other clubs and their owners and then think about what Norwich do. Very impressive.

Still on Norwich, can't believe no one else has mentioned Delia nodding off last night during the game :sleep:. Very funny :LOL:
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,474
Location
Rutland
Visit site
You are right about the players - but there is no way they would go back to £10k a week unless there was a world wide cap. Players would just walk away to teams in Italy , France etc

In theory it would only take one or 2 countries to do that to crash they system effectively. You would then have a saturation of players looking for bigger money deals and that would drive down the wages based on supply and demand.

Personally, I would look at targetting transfer fees first as that would be easier. Cap transfer fees at, lets say, 3 times the value of the time left on the wages on the contract. Player prices just cannot keep going up as they are. If you added a salary cap above any current earnings (lets say £1 million a week for the most elite players), that would limit their transfer fee to £150 million if there was 3 years left on their contract, which would freeze prices at the top end of what is being paid now and that would only be what you would pay for the most elite players with long contracts.

Apply that globally and it is a start, then start applying reductions to that maximum salary to start reeling things in.

A pipe dream I know.
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
10,642
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
It probably wont change, because its gone too far down the line, but you can reel it back in a lot.

I would estimate that 80% of the extra money has gone in the players pockets, with 10% going on facilities (which did need upgrading) and 10% on superfluous stuff like directors of football, extra physios, statisticians and all manner of extra staff, like throw in coaches.

Now that most facilities are very good, put the players back on 10k a week, 7-8 games at 3pm with a 5.30 saturday, 2pm and 4pm Sunday games.

Sorry, but players like Maddison buying a 6k backpack do my head in.
That is how the world works though, not just football. Some people just get born lucky, they happen to have a rare talent and they ultimately get paid a lot for it. Whether it be many different types of sportsperson, movie star, pop star or even many in business. Yes, they may buy a back pack for £6k which is mental to most of us, but at least they are spending their money. That £6k goes into someone else's pocket, and so on and so forth. I've bought golf t-shirts for £100, and there will still be people that think that is relatively mental, everything is relative. Anyway, maybe this back back had some nice features ;)

Liverpoolphil is correct though, unless a worldwide cap is applied, then putting a salary cap in the PL would end up being a massive own goal for them.

In terms of 7 games on a Saturday at 3pm, this can get tricky if you have 4 teams playing in the Champions League and 3-4 teams in Europa League. In many cases, Sunday matches may be better for some of those teams? You also have Monday Night Football, which is pretty popular amongst fans. If you start limiting live PL football to a Saturday evening and a couple of matches on a Sunday, it may become less attractive for fans to buy Sky, or at least both Sky and BT.

However, one interesting point is, are we at the peak in terms of the money gained from broadcasting in its current format? It is difficult to see how broadcasting companies can aim to make even more money, unless they can rake in more and more fans. I can't see them spreading out the fixtures much more than they do, so unless they can get to a point where every game is televised, even 3pm on Saturday, how do they make even more money? I wonder if that is why clubs tried to vote for that Super League, as they knew the only way they could get more money was to change the format to suit them, rather than improve broadcasting rights on the existing formats of each league.
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
10,642
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
In theory it would only take one or 2 countries to do that to crash they system effectively. You would then have a saturation of players looking for bigger money deals and that would drive down the wages based on supply and demand.

Personally, I would look at targetting transfer fees first as that would be easier. Cap transfer fees at, lets say, 3 times the value of the time left on the wages on the contract. Player prices just cannot keep going up as they are. If you added a salary cap above any current earnings (lets say £1 million a week for the most elite players), that would limit their transfer fee to £150 million if there was 3 years left on their contract, which would freeze prices at the top end of what is being paid now and that would only be what you would pay for the most elite players with long contracts.

Apply that globally and it is a start, then start applying reductions to that maximum salary to start reeling things in.

A pipe dream I know.

But, if those one or 2 countries were, say England and Spain, then all the best players in the world would try to go to Italy, Germany or France. The Premier League would become like the Golf European Tour compared to Italy's PGA Tour.
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,474
Location
Rutland
Visit site
That is how the world works though, not just football. Some people just get born lucky, they happen to have a rare talent and they ultimately get paid a lot for it. Whether it be many different types of sportsperson, movie star, pop star or even many in business. Yes, they may buy a back pack for £6k which is mental to most of us, but at least they are spending their money. That £6k goes into someone else's pocket, and so on and so forth. I've bought golf t-shirts for £100, and there will still be people that think that is relatively mental, everything is relative. Anyway, maybe this back back had some nice features ;)

Liverpoolphil is correct though, unless a worldwide cap is applied, then putting a salary cap in the PL would end up being a massive own goal for them.

In terms of 7 games on a Saturday at 3pm, this can get tricky if you have 4 teams playing in the Champions League and 3-4 teams in Europa League. In many cases, Sunday matches may be better for some of those teams? You also have Monday Night Football, which is pretty popular amongst fans. If you start limiting live PL football to a Saturday evening and a couple of matches on a Sunday, it may become less attractive for fans to buy Sky, or at least both Sky and BT.

However, one interesting point is, are we at the peak in terms of the money gained from broadcasting in its current format? It is difficult to see how broadcasting companies can aim to make even more money, unless they can rake in more and more fans. I can't see them spreading out the fixtures much more than they do, so unless they can get to a point where every game is televised, even 3pm on Saturday, how do they make even more money? I wonder if that is why clubs tried to vote for that Super League, as they knew the only way they could get more money was to change the format to suit them, rather than improve broadcasting rights on the existing formats of each league.


The plethora of streaming companies will deal with the increase in money. Sky will pay the same but for less matches and then the like of Amazon Prime or any other streaming company that wants to up its profile will pay a premium for a small tranche of matches. Good for club pockets, bad for the fan. Hate to think what you would need to pay now to see all of your clubs televised matches.
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,474
Location
Rutland
Visit site
But, if those one or 2 countries were, say England and Spain, then all the best players in the world would try to go to Italy, Germany or France. The Premier League would become like the Golf European Tour compared to Italy's PGA Tour.

True but Germany are not big wage payers and suddenly you have a ton of players on the market looking to go to a more limited number of clubs. If you have 3 strikers all looking for a deal to get out of the premier league, the clubs are gong to negiate wages down due to that excesss supply.
 
Top