The Super League

[CosbehFox]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How do the smaller clubs increase their fan base and haven't they all been trying that for the 100 years? 

If you look attendances, the bottom two professional divisions have increased from 1993 post Premier League and 2004 post ITV digital. 
 

That would suggest to me that the financial issues stem an awful lot from the ‘gap’ rather than than an infrastructure issue which sees supporters not going. 

[Greg2607]

Just now, Webbo said:

I bet that's never occurred to them. All those years they've existed trying not to be successful. 

in any market, there are always going to be entities that are bigger and better than others. We've been successful by following a different model haven't we?  So why couldn't others try to do the same. Some clubs may do it by investing in their youth setups.  Others may do it by buying up cheap talent on free transfers.  Some may try to play a different style of football.  Ultimately, clubs would have to innovate. 

 

 

[David Hankey]

The ESL project is now dead in the water, common sense appears to have prevailed.

[Lesta Legend]

16 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

My twopenneth....

 

Kids don't need games on terrestrial TV anymore. My lad consumes games via his social media feeds on YouTube. 

 

All the fun and interesting bits of play and interviews and controversy sliced up and ready....plus there's lots of yiutube channels that chew the cud for hours on watchalongs etc. 

 

Basically kids do consume. But it won't ever be sitting down to watch des lynam on bbc or itv with Elton welsby ever again. Those days are gone.

So true. They consume more football orientated media than I ever did, it’s a complete fabrication to say kids aren’t interested. It’s all about monetising how they’re watching it - which is usually Facebook/ YouTube / streaming sites - so they hardly make money out of them - FIFA 21 aside! Football governing bodies know this it’s all about the money. 
 

And the game shouldn’t be changed to suit a global audience. Game going fans have to be the centre point of any strategy the rest of the world already buy into that. 

Edited 21 April 2021 by Lesta Legend

[Nick]

Just now, David Hankey said:

The ESL project is now dead in the water, common sense appears to have prevailed.

Keep me updated Dave.

[filbertway]

6 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Fine then.... put it on Netflix. The point was, parents shouldn't have to fork out £40 a month for their kids to be able to watch football. 

 

And gving their laptops aids by Trying to find streams online isn't exactly a feasible answer either. 

Do you think Netflix are going to pay for it and give it away for free?

 

I pay £50 for Sky and BT and think it's tremendous value for money. I watch at least 20-30 games a month. If I only watched 5-10 games a month I wouldn't bother with it

[Lesta Legend]

Just now, filbertway said:

Do you think Netflix are going to pay for it and give it away for free?

 

I pay £50 for Sky and BT and think it's tremendous value for money. I watch at least 20-30 games a month. If I only watched 5-10 games a month I wouldn't bother with it

I pay £8 a month and can watch every 3pm kick off, who’s getting better value for money?

[Scotch]

1 minute ago, filbertway said:

Do you think Netflix are going to pay for it and give it away for free?

 

I pay £50 for Sky and BT and think it's tremendous value for money. I watch at least 20-30 games a month. If I only watched 5-10 games a month I wouldn't bother with it

I didn't say "Free". My point was, make it affordable. £50 a month isn't affordable to a LOT of families in this country. 

 

I pay my fair share for Sky but I consider myself lucky to be able to do so when there are families struggling to afford essential items. 

[filbertway]

Just now, Lesta Legend said:

I pay £8 a month and can watch every 3pm kick off, who’s getting better value for money?

You

Kinda making my point that internet savvy people can access the footie for practically nothing

[midland_red]

Fascinating story in the mail. Essentially that the rich six may have to pay compensation to what is left of ESL for breach of contract. This maybe why Madrid and Barca haven't left..

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9494797/Rebel-clubs-forced-pay-heavy-price-backing-Super-League-insist-lawyers.html

Edited 21 April 2021 by midland_red

[davieG]

16 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

"Streaming" in and of itself isn't the issue. 

 

It's the fragmented nature of it and the fact that it's a lottery as to whether your team get shown or not. 

 

Here is the best solution that still monetises the game for the clubs involved....

 

The Premier League set up a streaming platform, that they own and run themselves.  they can broadcast ALL of the games in a similar way to how amazon did it last year.  (they are all shown internationally anyway)  Each and every club in the premier league can then have a "season ticket pass" - Let's say this costs £5 per game for every Leicester game...

 

pass the majority of the revenue raised for each season pass over to the clubs. (with a percentage still going to the premier league to distribute to the football pyramid)  The bigger clubs then get a bigger slice of the pie, but it also gives the smaller clubs an incentive to increase their fan base AND they get properly rewarded for any success or growth in the club. 

 

It also gives access to the global fanbase for a given club.  Fans would get to see every single game for the club they support. 

 

Make it cheaper than an actual season ticket for attending matches (let's be honest, the majority of people that support a club can't get access to a season ticket anyway, or don't have the time / ability to get to the games) 

 

Who loses in that scenario?

 

Yes, the broadcasters.  But that's not our responsibility. 

 

The bigger clubs feel fairly rewarded. The smaller clubs operate in a way where they are running the business based on the size of revenue they can generate and fans get better access to the games.

 

 

The bigger clubs will just get bigger with this idea. We need to work towards an NFL type funding system, yeah an American one where all revenues, even merchandise goes into a branded NFL pot and then distributed equally amongst all NFL clubs.

 

I know we'll never go that far but that's how the broadcasting revenue should be divided up. There's no PL without the likes of Burnley, Fulham even us back in the day when we were permanently trying to avoid relegation. These Rich 6 are rich on the back of the  other 14 clubs.

[filbertway]

1 minute ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I didn't say "Free". My point was, make it affordable. £50 a month isn't affordable to a LOT of families in this country. 

 

I pay my fair share for Sky but I consider myself lucky to be able to do so when there are families struggling to afford essential items. 

I'd love to see the prices drop and football finances drop to more normal levels. 2nd tier footballers should be earning half a million a year. In some cases probably 1-2 million a year. The ridiculous money in the levels above is just making clubs poorer because wage demands are increasing.

 

It's very broken at the minute and eventually the bubble will pop. It'll be a glorious day for football.

 

Either way, we never had sky when I was a kid and I grew up absolutely loving football because I went to games. Whether it be Anstey Nomads, Bardon, Coalville or Leicester. The fact it isn't on free view tv is not the reason that kids aren't interested. It just isn't.

[StriderHiryu]

 

[StriderHiryu]

[Chrysalis]

16 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Do you think Netflix are going to pay for it and give it away for free?

 

I pay £50 for Sky and BT and think it's tremendous value for money. I watch at least 20-30 games a month. If I only watched 5-10 games a month I wouldn't bother with it

If you someone who loves watching the glory teams, you can argue its reasonable value as nearly all their games are aired.

 

As someone who wants to watch us play, I dont care one bit for e.g. man utd vs liverpool unless they directly competing for league position with us and it affects us.  I think its poor value as I am then paying that £50 a month for maybe 1-2 games a month.

 

Instead I pay £7.50 a month for access to every single EPL game.  I really want to watch non league games though but they harder to find.

[Lesta Legend]

9 minutes ago, filbertway said:

You

Kinda making my point that internet savvy people can access the footie for practically nothing

Yes so it seems completely insane why anyone pays it in the first instance. The prices are too high. 
 

I don’t think you have to be too tech savvy either, my 70 in law has it all, with an initial helping hand but he hasn’t missed a match in 3 years. 

[Webbo]

13 minutes ago, midland_red said:

Fascinating story in the mail. Essentially that the rich six may have to pay compensation to what is left of ESL for breach of contract.

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9494797/Rebel-clubs-forced-pay-heavy-price-backing-Super-League-insist-lawyers.html

This was always going to be their punishment. 

[ARTY_FOX]

14 minutes ago, midland_red said:

Fascinating story in the mail. Essentially that the rich six may have to pay compensation to what is left of ESL for breach of contract. This maybe why Madrid and Barca haven't left..

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9494797/Rebel-clubs-forced-pay-heavy-price-backing-Super-League-insist-lawyers.html

Can't wait for it to turn out this was perez plan all along and he's absolutley fleeced the Americans. 

[An Away Move]

.

Edited 21 April 2021 by SydenhamFox

[Scotch]

15 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I'd love to see the prices drop and football finances drop to more normal levels. 2nd tier footballers should be earning half a million a year. In some cases probably 1-2 million a year. The ridiculous money in the levels above is just making clubs poorer because wage demands are increasing.

 

It's very broken at the minute and eventually the bubble will pop. It'll be a glorious day for football.

 

Either way, we never had sky when I was a kid and I grew up absolutely loving football because I went to games. Whether it be Anstey Nomads, Bardon, Coalville or Leicester. The fact it isn't on free view tv is not the reason that kids aren't interested. It just isn't.

Absolutely disagree. 

 

The more kids who can watch football, the more kids who will love football and the best way to maximise how many people watch it is to put it on a channel that everyone has. That's just common sense. 

[midland_red]

4 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

Can't wait for it to turn out this was perez plan all along and he's absolutley fleeced the Americans. 

It will be s big beanfest for the lawyers if the mail is right. I wonder where ESL was legally incorporated? And where the contracts said was the venue for dispute resolution

[Greg2607]

18 minutes ago, davieG said:

The bigger clubs will just get bigger with this idea. We need to work towards an NFL type funding system, yeah an American one where all revenues, even merchandise goes into a branded NFL pot and then distributed equally amongst all NFL clubs.

 

I know we'll never go that far but that's how the broadcasting revenue should be divided up. There's no PL without the likes of Burnley, Fulham even us back in the day when we were permanently trying to avoid relegation. These Rich 6 are rich on the back of the  other 14 clubs.

They may well do.... but they are clamouring for a bigger slice of the pie anyway.... This gives them that slice.  You could always set a "mimimum" income level for every team. You are never going to get the bigger clubs to actively sign up to something which makes them smaller. 

 

 

Edited 21 April 2021 by Greg2607

[peach0000]

2 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Absolutely disagree. 

 

The more kids who can watch football, the more kids who will love football and the best way to maximise how many people watch it is to put it on a channel that everyone has. That's just common sense. 

The point is ‘kids’ can watch all the football they want for free if they don’t have sky or bt through streaming. YouTube has goals from the premier league through the sky sports channel on there as soon as they happen. Sky post highlights for free to Twitter and Facebook as well. Football is more accessible than every. The real question for me is are 16-24 year olds really not interested in football? Or is it just a myth? I’ve seen no evidence!

[Kopfkino]

18 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Either way, we never had sky when I was a kid and I grew up absolutely loving football because I went to games. Whether it be Anstey Nomads, Bardon, Coalville or Leicester. The fact it isn't on free view tv is not the reason that kids aren't interested. It just isn't.

Everyone should be championing more football through free avenues and encouraging a more engaging experience (just talking about terrestrial TV is so backwards) because it does help get people into it. But also the competition for everyone’s attention these days is so big that there needs to be realism about its effectiveness and that maybe kids do prefer other entertainment forms.

[murphy]

48 minutes ago, Nick said:

Yep, they have also been pricing them out of attending games - working families can't afford to take four people to every match and park the car and buy them drinks and food out.

 

Plus, if you are a business its about marketing yourself to the next generation and that means losing revenue and bringing in schools and community projects to games and investing in their local young communities - like our club do, not just doing the odd thing and raking massive publicity from it.

Yes, if it's true that young people are less interested then that's the reason imo.  My old man took me to Filbert St. regularly from 5 years old.  If you actually go to the games you become indoctrinated.  I'm an institutionalised Leicester fan.

 

In my experience, other kids that didn't have that became the glory hunters with loose affiliations or casual fans. 

 

These days it's much less accessible because of the cost.