Sky new TV deal & kick-off times

[Green Flash]

Unseen Green, you may be right about overall populations but historically football clubs are very much associated with a city rather than a region, it is primarily an urban sport, and the majority of supporters are drawn from the city the club is located in. The most historic successful clubs that get the biggest crowds all come from large centres of population. You say it is an "unfair" bias towards the North/Midlands but it would be more accurate to say it is an "unfair" bias towards the major cities of England, including, as you note, London in the South.

 

[Mr Gillingham]

If you look at some of the accounts lodged at companies house for last season , the football league payout to league 1 clubs was £2M - £2.5M . With the increased tv money that will increase to around £3M ,for next season .

For championship clubs last season the football league /tv/ premier league payout combined was around £9M and will probably be a bit more this season and maybe up to £10M . With the new Sky money that will go up by £2.6M minimum for next season with extra being paid as a facility fee each time a game is televised . As far as I know the new facility fee hasn’t been publicised but with the number of games being shown you can probably add on another £1M .

That excludes any money from the sale of the tv rights in Europe , Asia , America etc which was only signed in March ( doesn’t affect streaming ) so potentially a bit more .

The difference between L1 and Cship next season will be £9M - £11M .

You’d like to think that extra would be made available to the player budget . While all C’ship clubs will get the same ( roughly) they are all making substantial losses so that money may just be used to reduce the losses instead of putting the money into wages .

In terms of wages not all clubs publicise player wages but some do - Ipswich last year paid £12.5M and Cardiff £14.5M - with both making substantial losses( not that Ipswich will care !) .

Notwithstanding our stadium size our turnover for this season at somewhere £22M -£24m will be competitive with mid table championship sides so it all depends on how much the Board release.

Interesting what the wage bill will be for next season. Something approaching £15 million?

 

[The Unseen Green]

Unseen Green, you may be right about overall populations but historically football clubs are very much associated with a city rather than a region, it is primarily an urban sport, and the majority of supporters are drawn from the city the club is located in. The most historic successful clubs that get the biggest crowds all come from large centres of population

And I'm also right about the blackout being used as a tool to further galvanise the wealth and power of those clubs.
There's literally no way whatsoever that anyone can counter that with anything compelling.

Bristol was more populous than Birmingham until the 70s, but more success in football came to the latter - so there's more to it than just population.
It's actually more likely that football was not as popular there because there wasn't enough focus on football nationally - the North, Midlands and London have always been the core focus of everything in this country and football is a great, unwavering example of that reality.

 

[Tamargreen]

And I'm also right about the blackout being used as a tool to further galvanise the wealth and power of those clubs.
There's literally no way whatsoever that anyone can counter that with anything compelling.

Bristol was more populous than Birmingham until the 70s, but more success in football came to the latter - so there's more to it than just population.
It's actually more likely that football was not as popular there because there wasn't enough focus on football nationally - the North, Midlands and London have always been the core focus of everything in this country and football is a great, unwavering example of that reality.

Are you sure about that?

 

[jimsing]

Surely the Premiership attendances are worth very little in comparison to the tv money they receive, and therefore why not show 3pm Saturday matches for the Premiership? There are usually only a few Premiership matches on at that time on a Saturday anyway.

I cannot see the reason to not show them at that time, with so many EFL matches being moved, in order to show their matches on tv, there will be very few efl matches on at 3pm on a Saturday as well now.

Maybe that is Sky's idea, in order to further their push for the ban to be lifted altogether.

 

[The Unseen Green]

Are you sure about that?

I'm chatting it on that one. 🤣

I was hoping the Flash would grab that gotcha first.

 

[tawtongreen]

Whilst I remain overjoyed that we stayed up, am I alone to be disappointed that all we are talking about now is money & not really the football itself..... The game I fell in love with & Argyle have sustained my interest in for 60+ years appears to have been lost in the financial & business demands of success or failure. Was the game not purer say 30 years ago?
Anyway, time to start dreaming of the playoffs next season.....before reality hits in November....hopefully, not before!
COYGS!!!!

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Surely the Premiership attendances are worth very little in comparison to the tv money they receive, and therefore why not show 3pm Saturday matches for the Premiership? There are usually only a few Premiership matches on at that time on a Saturday anyway.

I cannot see the reason to not show them at that time, with so many EFL matches being moved, in order to show their matches on tv, there will be very few efl matches on at 3pm on a Saturday as well now.

Maybe that is Sky's idea, in order to further their push for the ban to be lifted altogether.

It’s true that the prem teams gate money means very little to them but the concern is fans will stay home and watch that rather than going to their local EFL or non- league game.

For us who are already heavily invested, there is nothing that would stop us from going to an argyle game if we want to but it might make it harder to draw in new fans without any prior attachment.

 

[Keith Hennessey]

Whilst I remain overjoyed that we stayed up, am I alone to be disappointed that all we are talking about now is money & not really the football itself..... The game I fell in love with & Argyle have sustained my interest in for 60+ years appears to have been lost in the financial & business demands of success or failure. Was the game not purer say 30 years ago?
Anyway, time to start dreaming of the playoffs next season.....before reality hits in November....hopefully, not before!
COYGS!!!!

IMO it is simply because the game has transitioned from a sport to a business in your and my lifetime.

 

[pafcdje]

Interesting what the wage bill will be for next season. Something approaching £15 million?

I’d reckon around £12M .

 

[Marco Polo]

Football, invented by the poor and stolen by the rich.

 

[The Unseen Green]

Football, invented by the poor and stolen by the rich.

I'm sure you're aware the existence of The Cambridge Rules certainly represent a valid counterpoint to the presumed point of that statement though, eh?

The unintended reality of that statement is the implication that the presumed freedom of expression felt by those playing football should always be subject to the prospect of oppression from those with status and power, when in reality it's just one of a number of sports that are historically easily played by anyone with the correct gear - limbs and a ball.

It's just a statement that needed the power of the words 'Poor' and 'Rich', and like every other contrived statement that implies the North as the poor and the South as the wealthy oppressors, it utilises particular words that feed a BS narrative that has historical basis built on waffle - the dumb af assumption that everyone up North has been shafted by everyone down South.

I'm sure that some might dismiss me as anti-North by now - they can crack on.
It must be said, however, that there are many Northerners who really can't deal with my views - some even get quite punchy, but I won't stand for their BS., and that is precisely what it is.

There's not a single person on the planet who'll convince me that we in the South-West have it easier than them up North because facts don't lie. I've worked and lived in many places around the country - including plenty of Northern towns/cities - the poverty and levels of social neglect are very similar.

One of the problems we have in the South-West is the stereotype presumed upon all of us because of simple, basic af, ignorance - wealthy bumpkins who don't know what struggle is, and/or privileged buffoons who snort and chortle at the presumed misfortune of everyone else.

The statement, in reality, should read -
"Football - created by the free, exploited as a tool by people who seek to politicise anything they can to feed their conformist agenda."
But that sounds more clunky, accurate but clunky.

The statement itself sounds like something from a film - profound and rebel-rousing, but it is as insipid and uninspiring as a Tory promise.
It amounts to nothing beyond words, simply because it is nothing beyond words.
It sounds good though, so I'm sure I'll hear and read it many hundreds more times in my lifetime, but it really does mean absolutely nish.

 

[Bryan Tregunna]

Do you need oxygen up there, TUG?

 

[stevey]

I'm sure you're aware the existence of The Cambridge Rules certainly represent a valid counterpoint to the presumed point of that statement though, eh?

The unintended reality of that statement is the implication that the presumed freedom of expression felt by those playing football should always be subject to the prospect of oppression from those with status and power, when in reality it's just one of a number of sports that are historically easily played by anyone with the correct gear - limbs and a ball.

It's just a statement that needed the power of the words 'Poor' and 'Rich', and like every other contrived statement that implies the North as the poor and the South as the wealthy oppressors, it utilises particular words that feed a BS narrative that has historical basis built on waffle - the dumb af assumption that everyone up North has been shafted by everyone down South.

I'm sure that some might dismiss me as anti-North by now - they can crack on.
It must be said, however, that there are many Northerners who really can't deal with my views - some even get quite punchy, but I won't stand for their BS., and that is precisely what it is.

There's not a single person on the planet who'll convince me that we in the South-West have it easier than them up North because facts don't lie. I've worked and lived in many places around the country - including plenty of Northern towns/cities - the poverty and levels of social neglect are very similar.

One of the problems we have in the South-West is the stereotype presumed upon all of us because of simple, basic af, ignorance - wealthy bumpkins who don't know what struggle is, and/or privileged buffoons who snort and chortle at the presumed misfortune of everyone else.

The statement, in reality, should read -
"Football - created by the free, exploited as a tool by people who seek to politicise anything they can to feed their conformist agenda."
But that sounds more clunky, accurate but clunky.

The statement itself sounds like something from a film - profound and rebel-rousing, but it is as insipid and uninspiring as a Tory promise.
It amounts to nothing beyond words, simply because it is nothing beyond words.
It sounds good though, so I'm sure I'll hear and read it many hundreds more times in my lifetime, but it really does mean absolutely nish.

In order for someone to be relatively rich, someone must be relatively poor. If person A is richer than person B, then there's at least one person that is poorer than person A.

The south is not necessarily wealthier than the north but more people in London are wealthier than the rest of the country.

 

[Steamer]

In order for someone to be relatively rich, someone must be relatively poor. If person A is richer than person B, then there's at least one person that is poorer than person A.

The south is not necessarily wealthier than the north but more people in London are wealthier than the rest of the country.

Bit of a generalisation there .. Commute to London for work .. £6,000 after tax ... House rent £1,500 a month. It is very expensive to live in this part of the country and I live 30 miles north of London. London has millions of folk below or at the breadline. Yes there is extreme wealth in London but that isnt the norm.