Liverpool Banter Archive October 12 2011
Use our rumours form to send us liverpool transfer rumours.
12 Oct 2011 23:18:19
Ed, been reading an article about us being linked with
Moussa Sow of Lille. Do you know if he's a possibility for Jan? Is he a good player? Maybe a possible deal involving Cole on a perm? To be honest I watch very little of the French league and would appreciate your feedback.
Thanks in advance
TIZER RED
PS Post in banter site please ED. {Ed001's Note - as far as I am aware he is a possibility, though Ed002 would have a better idea on that, I am sure we have taken a look at him while watching Hazard. He does look a good player in the French league, looks capable of making a step up, I think.}
12 Oct 2011 22:36:31
Ed, will all this tv rights abroad stuff have any effect on us being live on the British channels etc? I'm confused! Cheers {Ed002's Note - Don't worry about it.}
12 Oct 2011 21:15:15
Hi lads, not been on here in a while, but Ayre's comments have enticed me back on. I for one am disgusted by his proposal. As if the Premier League wasn't already all about money, he wants to divide the richer from the poorer even more?! Are you kidding me? We need to go back to the days when gate money was shared and level the playing field more, not make it more uneven. If the club backs Ayre's comments I'll be hugely disappointed. Football is a sport for the people, and that means for everyone, not a few elite clubs that think they're too big to have to share money
Red Ollie
Firstly are you a Liverpool supporter Ollie and also can you let me know why you disagree with this. I understand in a perfect world every team would receive equal amounts but lets be fair the reality is the opposite. With fifa and uefa the small teams will never be on a level playing field. I say we take what we can.
Communism?
Jason
Have to agree, with Plattini's master plan of FFP coming in, clubs have to look at ways of maximising their revenue streams, that is why we are probably going to move to a larger stadium and selling oversea's tv rights is just another way of maximising income. It my not be fair but how else are we going to compete with clubs who have very wealthy owners or them that have gate revenue's far greater than ours?
I for one agree with Ian Ayre, why should the likes of bolton, fulham and the likes gain abroad from our fan base. we are the only country in the world that does not allow its sporting team sell its own tv rights.
the players now get image rights, why cant we get the same. the gulf will get bigger but it will then mean the less fancied clubs will have to increase there popularity.
come on people see the bigger picture, if you want a bigger piece of the pie work for it, all this means is they still get a big piece without paying for it
sweetcorn
The problem is that if the club is to sell its television rights the league will turn into la liga. every team in the top 2 divisions have debts with most of them struggling to just pay the interest on those debts. the league becomes uncompetitive and loses its fan appeal. united liverpool chelsea and arsenal may be more competitive in the european competitions but it will cripple the premier league. competitive premier league or competitve in champs league. id rather have the prem to be honest.
GMN
The reasons I disagree with Ayre are:
1) Learn from history. La Liga have the system Ayres is proposing; they have 2 top teams and the rest are years behind.
2) It will further widen the gap between rich and poor in the league. Already teams know they will never win the league or even qualify for the Champions' League without an investor. Outside of the top 6 clubs, the PL has become a race to find the next rich foreign investor. Ayre's proposals will make it even harder to break into that top 6 cabal, and finance will become even more of an issue. For me, football shouldn't be about money, it should be about competition
3) In a capitalist system, yes, we are entitled to all the money the PL makes off us abroad. But if sport operated under a capitalist system it would never get anywhere because the same clubs would dominate every year. This is already happening to some extent - it doesn't need to happen more. The spirit of sport is in the competition, not in keeping a few clubs more successful than everyone else
Red Ollie
There is some rubbbish talked on here. Comments like the premier league is competetive? Blackburn, Man u, Arsenal and Chelsea have won and blackburn and chelsea did it with a rich mans wallet.
The rich get richer whilst the poor get poorer.
Blair Mayne YNWA
And while im on the subject of rubbish, all those talking about the history of La Liga? it wasn't a 2 team league when Rafa's Valencia was winning titles was it? Reality check we have spent a fortune developing and growing our image and reputation globaly and inparticular the Far East why? to sell shirts? the counterfeit center of the world. is it so they will all come and watch us live in our massive stadium every week? NO obviously not, we like all the other big teams in the world have been moving towards these TV deals and the increased sponsership oppotunities for years. Now it's time to start cashing in on the expensive investment we have put in.
RN.Red
Its all about winning trophies. who cares about the rest as long as we are winning
Ollie...... Shame on you... At the moment there are a small group of teams (4/5) that are the reason for all of the big money being pumped into the EPL. All teams should receive a fair amount not the same amount! Why should clubs not have the right to sell their own rights to TV companies world wide? That way every team gets what they are worth instead of other clubs pinching it out of the back pockets of those that people want to see play more often
SW81
Agree with Ollie here but to be honest i dont see why everyone is getting so worked up about this it will never happen thankfully
SW81: think about what you are saying. If every team got "what they were worth" from the inception of a sport, sport would be ridiculous. Imagine you invent a new sport and there are 10 teams. In the first team the Sharks win the league. So they get more fans, here and overseas. The little bit of extra revenue from being allowed to keep all of this money means they win the league again the next year. However, in the first season, the Squids finish bottom. Some fans start supporting the Sharks instead. So the Squids don't get as much money. Extend this over time and you have a polarised league where the same one or two teams constantly compete to win the league, while the rest play out their own mini league below them. Ayre's proposals may be a way to run a business but they are no way to run a football club
Red Ollie
12 Oct 2011 21:05:17
As the whole Ian Arye tv rights abroad thing is boring and confusing im going to give up and try again in the morning hoping that the story is either clearer or moved on, so good night everyone -McMenemy
12 Oct 2011 19:38:26
Regarding Ayre's idea about individual overseas tv rights, I feel pretty torn.
I mean, I know we'd benefit hugely from it cos we're 1 of the most popular teams in the world, esp in asia. The financial rewards would b huge and that would be great for the club on the whole.
But that would leave many other clubs seriously struggling to survive, much less compete.
Though I dun live in the UK, I'm aware of the financial struggles many clubs face, esp the smaller ones.
I juz can't feel good with a 'it's gonna be great for us, sorry if it's hard on u' approach.:-(
Having said that though, i'd like to add that tho the collective tv rights with BSkyB benefits all the premier league teams, IT'S TOO DARN EXPENSIVE!!
Do u know how much it costs if u wana watch the EPL frm the comfort of ur home here in singapore? And it's costing more every couple of years!
Sigh.
Wonder if it'l cost less if I only pay for Pool games? I hardly watch the other teams anyway.
Which brings me back to- i'm torn.
Sigh.
Torn Singapore Red
I've always used the radio myself if I can't see the game on TV. Try it....it is quite an experience. Requires some imagination though!
Iggypop
Singapore Red mate, read ed002's comments below closely. The present money shared out would remain unaffected. It's money that the broadcasters are getting directly, for selling on the games to other countries, that is at dispute here. The 'smaller' clubs would not be affected directly from that (though they would be inso far as extra revenue would go to the 'larger' clubs with the global fan base and who would therefore have the ability to negotiate individual tv rights).
The Real KB {Ed002's Note - An example for Singapore Red would be to consider what mio TV pay ESPN in respect of the EPL games it shows - and what Goal TV pay Chelsea, Manchester City and Liverpool directly is another thought wort pursuing - perhaps another time.}
Ed, in all seriousness, you / the site should have a blog page with info on some of these key subjects. That would be invaluable for us punters, I think.
The Real KB {Ed002's Note - We discussed that a while back when trying to figure out standard answers to repeat questions, like, "You are wrong Ed Coentrao arrives on Thursday". I know I promised to explain the Fair Play rules with examples and I have to get to that. I will have a think about it again and talk to Ed001 but I am also about to be travelling for a prolonged period so time may be an issue.}
ED002 is a time lord! {Ed001's Note - she is just the sidekick.....}
I sympathise with you Singapore Red. Living in Singapore myself, I also know that to watch the World Cup last year we had to pay SGD70. In case fellow readers or the eds don't know, Singtel paid about SGD 400 million to broadcast the BPL for 3 seasons.
Having said that, I would rather we get less money to spend than affect the competitiveness of the PL because we get money and the rest don't. It's why the PL is so popular around the world because it's competitive. I don't want something similar to the La Liga happening, where 2 clubs over-dominate and nothing else. When I go to coffee shops in the morning I hear old uncles talking about Stoke, Fulham etc but I don't hear them talking about Villareal or Sevilla, for example
Keith YNWA
12 Oct 2011 19:18:54
I'd like to let sydney and mumbles know that i've never called utd fans spam. But this being a LIVERPOOL page, I dun see why it shld be a problem. U don't go to somecody else's home and complain about what they do or say. If u dun like it, feel free to not drop by.
Spam isn't that bad anyway. There are much worse things we could call utd fans but we're nice, decent folk here. Haha
And of cos man utd are not for the idea of individual tv rights. They easily get more than that by doing smthg despicable like listing over here in singapore where shares w/o voting rights can be sold. Man, I hate our stock exchange right now.
And fyi, over here in asia, there are many footie lovers. Huge numbers of these actually tend to support a winning team rather than stay loyal to 1 team. Many united 'fans' are also chelsea, arsemal or even Pool fans, depending on who's winning. In fact, sm are alrdy leaning towards city! Haha
BUT Pool fans are largely loyal and diehard. There are many loyal man utd supporters, of cos, but easily outnumbered by genuine Reds.
So it's presumptious to say man u will benefit most from individual tv rights.
That's a Red view from asia.:-)
Singapore Red
12 Oct 2011 18:48:44
Kristian Walsh open letter to Mr John Henry on the Liverpool website.
thekop.liverpoolfc.tv/_Dear-Mr-Henry/blog/5287789/173471.html
JRG
Great letter.
kopfiend 1978 ynwa
12 Oct 2011 18:34:52
Ed002 so do you see some compromise on oversees tv rights? Because am i right in saying you need 13 out of 20 clubs to agree with you to go alone. Which doesnt look like its going to happen.
Mighty reds {Ed002's Note - Liverpool would need to make a written proposal in the first instance that needs to then be voted on. To pass there would need to be 14 or more clubs in agreement. I do't see how compromise comes in to it really. I doubt that Liverpool will be making such a proposal just yet but it is clear that FSG are actively looking to improve revenue from such sources.}
12 Oct 2011 18:29:26
Would I be right in saying that it sounds as though we are going down the new stadium avenue with the coments made today about the naming rights
Bilverstone
12 Oct 2011 18:28:12
Has anyone else noticed our price to beat Man Utd has been drifting out all day? You can now get 21/10 at Will Hill for us to win. Thats an absolute gift considering our recent record against them at anfield. When we beat them it will create history because they have never lost 4 consecutive away games against any one club since the premier league began. 3 down 1 to go. Come on you reds.
12 Oct 2011 18:22:24
It's very simple really, it's all Man City's fault. How can we hope to compete with them or Chelsea with filty right owners who can just buy their way to anything they want. The one area where we can compete with, & surpass these clubs is our world wide fanbase & we are being prevented from doing so by the current TV deals. You don't see Man Utd being asked to share their attendance monies fairly do you - no & rightly so, the 70+ thousand who go to old trafford to watch them enrich them as a club because they are their fans. LFC have tens of thousands of fans who will never make it to the ground & they should be able to watch their club week just like those lucky enough to live in the UK. It's up to the other clubs to compete with us & try to become more popular. Also it's no harm to rattle the premier league & SKY a little as they have no problem in showing their bias against us.
JoseK
Manchester United do share the money you fool. £358m is split fairly between the 20 PL clubs at £17.9m each. United are happy for it to stay like this, but Liverpool want a larger piece of the pie.
Sydney! {Ed002's Note - It is not that money they want more of Syd.}
Ed002 - But it's the overseas TV companies that pay the PL a total of £358m, isn't it this cash that they want a bigger piece of?
Sydney! {Ed002's Note - No they don't and no it isn't. That is the amount currently shared out - not the total revenue from selling the EPL abroad. It am lost in the hopelessness of trying to explain I am afraid.}
Ed002 - The PL receive £1.4bn over three years for overseas TV companies, if you take away the £358m per a year you are left with £326m. Is it the £326m left over that they want a bigger share of?
Sydney! {Ed002's Note - No, that is the Premier Leagues cut. These figues are not relevant at all. It is not the money the PL receive that is in question. It is the money that is being generated by the likes of Sky selling to numerous nations, ESPN selling to Fox, etc.. The revenue being generated (forget all of the numbers) is very significant and growing - but it is not going to the clubs.}
Ed002 - So why would United & Chelsea etc have no interest in trying to get some of that money?
Sydney! {Ed002's Note - The questions asked of the "representatives" by the Guardian were heavily loaded. There is no proposal on the table right now - simply a statement from Ayre's that has been given way too much air time.}
Ed002 - Everyone has the wrong end of the stick then mate, every newspaper, football site etc. They are all obviously mis-informed as they are convinced it's the £358m that Liverpool want more of. Is this a case of journalists jumping on the bandwagon?
Sydney! {Ed002's Note - Yes, I believe it is. Everyone will be running the same basic story - and nobody will ask how much money changes hands for the television rights. A simple example is the Fox deal with ESPN. Another example is the money made by ESPN3. So it is not just football fans who should not be allowed to discuss money, but football journalists.}
Ed002 - I understand what you are saying now Ed. Hopefully the journalists can get on board soon.
So the Guardian leading with the story saying United and Chelsea are opposed to the idea of getting a bigger share. They are talking about the £358m, but in reality United and Chelsea will likely agree with what Ayre really wants to do as it will not effect the littler clubs at all? Sorry for the poor wording.
Sydney! {Ed002's Note - I know what questions the Guardian asked United, Chelsea and Sunderland - and they were well and truly loaded. No club would be able to sensibly comment until a proper proposal is made and digested. This has not happened. Perhaps there will be a nother story tomorrow, perhaps FSG going down the pan in Boston - who knows.}
Ed002 - What does FSG going down the pan mean? What do you mean by this exactly?
Sydney! {Ed002's Note - It was an example of another fickle story which will replace today's fickle story - it could be anything.}
No Sydney your the fool. I'm talking about your stadium revenues, that's a big advantage you have at Utd & fair play to you. But for LFC to compete they must be allowed to maximise all posible streams of revenue where we have an advantage, otherwise we cannot compete with petrodollars of City & Chelsea. City's stadium "deal" is the real peoblem here.
Josek
Ed002 - Got ya Ed, one more thing, isn't there a clause in the Sky/PL contract that says only the PL can sell rights abroad? Wouldn't Sky be breaching their contract?
Sydney! {Ed002's Note - There is reselling of the service to broadcasters such as Mio TV in Singapore, Fox in the US, Rogers in Canada etc.. In most cases this is through paying a fee to show the channel rather than rebroadcasting the games. I am sort of sick of this subject now and will wait for whatever is coming next. Perhaps the Guardian will have something on the Red Sox and FSG to keep you amused tomorrow. Who knows.}
'Josek'
Totally agree mate.
Sydney!
Ed002 - Also why would Ayre be talking about Bolton not having a big following in Asia if he wasn't talking about the £358m? You can certainly understand why people have jumped to the wrong conclusion can you?
Sydney! {Ed002's Note - It was an example that he probably regrets using and how on earth have you linked the two comments.}
Ed002 - Yes lets talk footy now, I am bored of this too.
Sydney! {Ed002's Note - Footy? If you mean football or soccer then you should say so.}
Ed002 - What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you're a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you're a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you're in Kuala Lumpur there isn't anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it's a very small number. Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal. So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs?
I think this statement is what made the world believe he was talking about the £358m. Because if no PL club is getting any money from Sky or ESPN selling overseas rights, then why use Bolton as the example? That's how I linked the two Ed, and I am sure this is why everyone else has got the wrong end of the stick too.
Sydney!
QED, Ed 002
If Liverpool secure independent TV revenue, ManUtd will be the FIRST club to follow suit (and who could blame them). It's just the way that BigFootball is going and we will have to live with it. I don't see it as being greedy - it's just Liverpool trying to maximise revenue in areas of opportunity. I would suggest that most teams, with a savvy businessman at the helm, WHO ARE IN OUR POSITION, would do the same. I'm worried it will hurt the smaller English teams too but unfortunately success in the league and financial success go hand-in-hand and if we want to compete with Madrid and Barca and Man City....we need to compete financially too. And, as always, Liverpool will lead and ManUtd will follow.
cozinoz
12 Oct 2011 17:57:03
I just want to talk about Dave Whelans comments who speaks sense and i agree as a Liverpool fan i wouldnt want this oversees tv rights to happen and it is all about money.
Eds do you believe Ayres comments were just testing the water? Also agree about the 39th game being a joke. Lets just look after our own league. And as i said you cant beat going to away grounds in this country taking 5 thousand to places like blackburn and wigan. Also going to newly promoted clubs.
Mighty reds.
{Ed002's Note - I don't suppose Ayre's comments were made to test the water, I am sure FSG are behind these ideas as a means of increasing revenues. Regardless of whether anyone agrees with him or not, the increased revenue from selling the rights are going to the likes of Sky and Fox and others. I imagine that this has come up today after the deals being struck with the FA and the EPL by Fox for another 6 years for showing games in North America and the Caribbean. There is earlier discussion about the long-term interests ofclubs in other revenue streams and a breakaway pan-European league was again discussed yesterday. But one of our readers of course consulted his Facebook friends (as he doesn't have any real ones) and it seems I know nothing about football at all. As for the 39th game, it is a joke as far as I am concerned. Clubs play friendlies already and that generates a good income for them.}
Your caning of Sydney is very educational ed. As I alluded to this morning.
The Real KB {Ed002's Note - It is not just Syd, but people do not understand that there is far more money changing hands than that shared out. As an example, Fox have an agreement with the FA that has been renewed to broadcast England games, FA Cup, Charity Shield etc. They also have a sublicence from ESPN to show EPL games - that money goes to ESPN not the clubs. Sky (seemingly disliked by all) sell EPL games throughout the world making a significant profit for themselves. Sky also sell on to Virgin who are themselves looking at other streams of future exploitation. It is that money Ayre's is talking about.}
'KB'
The news channels, sports channels and newspapers have got the wrong end of the stick bud, I don't see a problem with asking for more of that money. I think Ayre would be within his rights.
Sydney!
As have you Sydney. Lol. Though to be fair, you've put your name to questions / thoughts that most people would have had. But yes, I agree. It is Sky, Fox etc creaming off monies that the clubs have a right to.
The Real KB
12 Oct 2011 17:55:51
Eds I'm a bit lost on the whole Ian ayre thing, is it purely about tv Rights abroad?
Ashy {Ed002's Note - It is about the payments that the clubs receive from the TV rights which are sold overseas.}
Most of the big clubs have their own tv channels now anyway so would it not be easier to show every game on our own channel that way we get the money for people watching us, united get theirs, Chelsea get theirs and so on? {Ed002's Note - You cannot do that under the existing rules. Clubs want to sell the rights to broadcasters for individual nations - which would give far more revenue.}
Oh I see, well I don't know much about it so wouldn't like to put forward my thoughts. What would you suggest ed? I'd there away to keep everyone happy? {Ed002's Note - I think Ayre's comments have been probably given more of an airing by the press than they deserve. The owners clearly want to exploit as many avenues as possible for increasing revenue and whilst the whippet smoking brigade (with Facebook friends) may object, changes will eventually arrive under the banner of "progress". I imagine that Ayre's statement fell on the back of the negotiations which have been concluded by Fox to continue to broadcast the EPL in the good ol' US of A. The deal got little or no coverage in England, but perhaps FSG were wondering where the Fox money went? Don't be misled by Syd and his figures as he has gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. Revenues from abroad are increasing significantly; income to the clubs is not - that is the real issue and I suspect that the issue that Ayre's was trying to raise related to the additional income. The Guardian have compounded the matter by asking loaded questions to representatives of Chelsea, Manchester United and Sunderland; all pretty hopeless journalism I am afraid.}
Thanks for clearing that up ed
Ashy
12 Oct 2011 17:48:52
Dear Liverpool
EPL Minnows has another suggestion to generate extra money for Mr Henry and his mates.
This is a bit wacky, but bear with us.
How about developing a youth system that regularly promotes top quality youngsters from within, or getting a manager who doesn't waste millions on average players, thus creating success on the pitch and commercial success off it.
Or, perhaps a Liverpool National Lottery?
We remain not worthy of your pressence, and respect Liverpool's new anthem "you'll always want to walk alone".
EPL Minnows
This is defo "sir Alex " what a muppet . K96 .
Oh now I see, you aren't a fan of a small club with a valid point to make you are just a united fan trying to score points. You should concentrate on trying to score some points come Saturday instead
Chris in Tamworth
Lets face facts, the reason less-popular club's fans are angry at Ayres for suggesting independent tv packages is simply because they know they would get less than what they get now if it were to happen. The reason for this is because people want to see the Liverpools, the Man Utds and even the Chelseas, Man Citys and Arsenals, and a tiny percentage in comparison wanna sit up til 3am and watch Bolton Vs West Brom. While I don't think it would be good for the league to go down the road of club-by-club tv deals, you can't blame the big teams for pushing for it, these clubs (Liverpool and Man Utd in particular) are popular because of their fantastic history, why shouldn't the reap the rewards for decades of success?
Rugby Parker
12 Oct 2011 17:35:43
Ed001 you mentioned before that Liverpool will be looking for a few fringe players to leave in January as well a Dirk Kuyt, So my first question is do you know of any player that could be a suitable replacement for him and why do they want to sell him
Thanx Ed001
MJ {Ed002's Note - He said "The summer is likely to see a few fringe players go and Dirk Kuyt as well, with a replacement for him being the main target. But it is far too early to give any names, we will spend the next few months scouting them before making decisions."}
You could atleast of answered my question ED ;(
MJ {Ed001's Note - clearly the answer is there, this bit: 'it is far too early to give any names'}
Hey Ed001, can I just ask a question, why do you think that Kuyt will leave in the summer? I'm not doubting what your saying, in fact the opposite I believe you whole heartedly. Just curious, is there some agreement between club and player? Bit of a shame really, coz he's been the most proffessional out of any LFC player when everything happened with the previous owners. If he honestly does go, I hope we throw him an amazing send off. Fully deserves it.
KiwiRed {Ed001's Note - I have just been told that he will be allowed to leave, we are looking for a striker, I can only guess he is seen as 4th choice of the current ones.}
Ok thanks for that Ed, really apreciate it. A real shame about Kuyt though, I really love him as a player. He is severely underated and I really notice it when he isn't on the pitch.
KiwiRed
12 Oct 2011 17:39:05
I was reading the extract of pepe's new book,about a bust up he had with Carra I was so surprised it was over Carra wanting Pepe to hoof it out of defence. Carra and hoofing it. I don't believe it
12 Oct 2011 17:06:30
I have to say yous claim to have the best fans in the world and your team is a family club with ethics and morals. For such classy fans, the amount of times you refer to United and our fans as "scum" is disgraceful and there's no need for it. Its not banter or a laugh its wrong. I'm not saying everyone but the majority do and its not right.
You slate United for being this corporate machine without a soul and the minute you get your finances back on track, you move for an elite league within the elite and cut away the coat tails and jeopardize every club that's not in the clique. Doesn't sound like a team with morals to me.
Please less of the scum.
Mumbles
Hi agree 100% unfortunatley todays game is all about the money.
If we are talking about morals, remember when Liverpool were asked to donate £100k to Luton which would have taken them out of administration. Liverpool's reply was "We are not a charity"
Let's have it right u can't just aim that at us, I've been called far worse by united fans, in burnley of all places a pub full of em callin me a theiving t**t coz I'm a Liverpool fan and being called murderers so don't make out like it's just us coz ive seen hatred coming from united fans too, I should also point out that as far as I am aware I was the only Liverpool fan in the pub and all these united fans thought it was a good opportunity to give one Liverpool fan some stick.
I'm talking about on this site mate, not in your local.
Mumbles
I made post a while ago talking about the way the club would model itself I said it would use man utd as a template and this I believe is in line with my thoughts
Well Liverpool want Money so we can compete with the spending of teams such as United, City and chelsea so any income we get is beneficial to that cause...Its called good business and you know united who crush a smaller team if they were trying to get in their way of a business venture...And when The Utd fans that call Dalglish Dogleish and Liverpool Loserpool stop those pathetic remarks we may stop calling a high percentage of Utd supporters Scum...It works both ways mate
MJ
It's not about where im just saying we can't be held solely responsible, every team has them even though it is wrong it will always exsist, can't have one set of rules for one team and one for another, I know some teams are used to having it that way but it can't happen
It's not fair that liverpool tour through asia upping their fan base and teams like wigan etc benifit through tv sales when where the club they want to watch
'MJ'
Actually Manchester United are opposed to the idea, and United would benefit most from selling their own TV rights.
Sydney!
It wouldnt really help you catch up with the spending power of United, Chelsea or City because we would be getting the same if not more revenue. It would only separate the top 5-6 teams even more from the rest of the Premiership.
Mumbles
Sydney now we both know Liverpool are not a smaller club (as stated in my post) plus of course you are opposed to the idea as it was LIVERPOOLS idea
MJ
I think ian ayre is on to somthing good as king kenny says its all about the club we will just go about our buisness and if anybody gets offended well then thats not our problem we are doing what we think is just right for liverpool football club. no one else end off. {Ed002's Note - Actually, it doesn't work like that at all. Liverpool cannot do this on their own.}
'MJ'
Manchester United would benefit most by selling TV rights, that is not opinion, it's fact. But lets not get into that. I am against the idea if it means the other teams will get a smaller piece of the pie. And it could mean this.
Sydney!
Like I said earlier, Liverpool need 14 other teams to agree with them on this for it to go ahead, so far you have no teams agreeing with you. 19/1. So this means you will not be able to go it alone. All Ayre has done has shown the rest of us how desperate Liverpool are to up their revenue.
Sydney!
12 Oct 2011 17:06:27
I understand where Ian Ayre is coming from, for instance , lets say you ran a buisness and put a lot of money in expanding your buisness on a global scale, but any money you earnt had to be spread evenly to 19 of your competators, it would seem unfair but I think the agreement in place where every teams gets a cut is the right way to go for the sake of the premier league. saying that though weather this went ahead or not theres still a massive gulf in revenues between the top and lower clubs. ie sponsorship deals, match day revenue, shirt sales ect (rich owners) so should we start sharing this money evenly.
What needs to change is that the rules should be the same for all teams competing in europian leagues so the likes of Barca and Madrid don't get a advantage when it comes to the champions league.
Bilverstone
12 Oct 2011 16:55:45
You like?
-----------Reina------------
------Kelly-Carra-Agger-----
Johnson----Adam----Enrique
------Gerrard-Bellamy-------
-----Kuyt-------Suarez----
Nope, I do not like. Very weak defensively in midfield, and playing that system you'd have over £60million of summer signings on the bench, and also our best player from last season, Lucas.
In my opinion, with the players we have, the best formation/lineup is:
Reina
Kelly Carra Agger Enrique
Hendo Lucas Gerrard
Downing Carroll Suarez
Plus you're sitting with gamechangers such as Bellamy, Kuyt and Adam on the bench. Winner.
Rugby Parker
My formation is a 4-3-3 for this match.
Reina
Kelly - Carra - Agger/Skrtel - Enrique
Gerrard - Lucas - Adam
Kuyt/Downing - Carroll/Suarez - Suarez/Bellamy
Renegadered
"Very weak defensively in midfield" there's 5 players in midfield and 2 our normally full backs?! Your narrow 3 in midfield is far more weaker defensivley.
5 man mid of bellamy,lucas,adam,stevie,downing/kuyt.block their widemen.stop service to theie front men,denying them space.when in pocession,get ball quickly to our widemen,to support suarez,and get at their defence.lucas can protect our fairly slow back four,and give adam time to ping passes.whilst stevie gets forward also
Reina
Kelly- Carra-Agger-Enrique
Kuyt-Gerrard-Lucas-downing
Carroll-Saurez
12 Oct 2011 14:39:27
The other day on tv i saw an advertisement for a tv programme special where the liverpool players are doing a cook off. any one know what programme it is etc?
cheerz
n1
Cook-along-a-Kenny.
Come downing with me ch4 week days at 19:00
That was actually Blue Peter... how do you feel now>?
It wasnt an old tv series was it with EX Liverpool players...Torres was on Cant score Wont score ;)
Wasn't it 'Mash of the Day' ?
The Real KB
Good job they wasnt doing a kick off, they would have missed the ball.
12 Oct 2011 14:33:34
Dear Mighty Liverpool
With regret, your Mr Ayre's exclusive TV rights deal can't happen as its too damaging for us smaller clubs, and Man United would blast everyone out of the water if this were allowed as they are by far the biggest club in the world.
But, we are mindful that Liverpool are desperate, so how about this as possible solutions;
All us smaller EPL clubs (now known as EPL Minnows), could send round a hat at half-time asking for supporters to contribute to the "give Liverpool more money so they can compete with Barca and Madrid fund". I'm sure we would all give generously as we all love Liverpool. ....or
Perhaps all us nasty little irrelevant "EPL minnow" clubs could play our youth teams in fixtures with Liverpool, thus donating 6 points to your mighty club per season?
That way the superior Liverpool FC may get back into the top 4!
These options would enable our irrelevant "minnow clubs" (or our alternative collective name..Liverpool's cannon fodder) to keep our equal share of TV money so we can survive, and we would subserviently help the mighty Liverpool to get back into the CL.
I hope you appreciate we are trying to explore ways how the rest of the EPL can help poor old Liverpool to generate more money to help you compete with Barca and Madrid, because that's what's important to everyone who supports their respective football clubs in the country!
We know we are not worthy of being on the same pitch as Liverpool!
Lots of love
EPL Minnows
I cannot see why you are upset, why should you get money from foreign tv rights when the people in that country do not know who you are or where queens park rangers etc are from, they are paying the money to watch us and man u. Arsenal chelsea and city dont get the same coverage its all about liverpool & man utd in asia,austraila,afr,US. So if it wasnt for us you would receive no money because the EPL wouldn't generate any interest from foriegn lands, it would just be like the scottish leauge. If a super league was introduced and liverpool man u & a other went into it with barca,milan,ajax, munich, then who would watch the prem, no-one everyone would want to watch the super league. Your very lucky your getting the money you do get. al76 {Ed002's Note - I don't know about Africa or Australia, but the figures for the English teams televised the most in the US (2009 figures) show the top ten teams to be Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Newcastle, Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham, Aston Villa, Everton and Manchester City. I have some Asian figures from I think the same year somewhere but I recall they only cover Thailand and Malaysia. But I do suspect the broadcast figures would be broadly the same.}
Sour Grapes
Corkpoolred
I think you may find that many Liverpool fans wouldn't want this deal to go ahead as we all understand the damage it could do to the "smaller clubs" and therefore the league in general. If you want to snipe at a club that would happily tread on all others to achieve their own goals I think you should re-direct your anger towards the united page. Or if it bothers you so much how about having a go at spurs seeing as all the financial woes of the English game have come about as a result of teams becoming "companies" and the first team to do this was spurs.
So you see I think your comments are on the wrong site
Chris in Tamworth
Clubs are companies now chris, where the hell is tamwoth anyway and where is their banter page?
Finally someone who talks sense epl minnows i thoroughly agree with you and donations to liverpool so we can buy Neymar Ganso and Messi would be terrific the 6 points wo...oh wait you were being sarcastic :)
RustyNigels
Why make a point about tamworth,you another liverpool fan that thinks only scousers can support them? im a liverpool fan and you lot anoy me,living in your bubble,if it was not for chris from tamworth or sanjay from india we wouldnt be the liverpool we know and love so quit with that crap!
"Clubs are companies now chris,"
Isn't that what I said?
Chris on Tamworth
Its actually called tamwoRth, and chris,s point is as valid as any other poster no matter where we reside, end of....
RED4lifeNOTjust4XMAS
Ayre,Henry and the rest are tasked with making Liverpool the best club in the world and this suggestion would undoubtedly help.it is clearly an emotive issue and also more complex than epl minnows is making out.the premier league are determining who gets what yet the reality is that the brand is developed and promoted by the bigger clubs.The reasonable concern that people have is that the league becomes uncompetitive.my guess and probably what I hope is that there is a compromise position between the status quo.Ed001 I enjoy your comments but suggesting Ayre should he removed is melodramatic in the extreme and I know he will have made a few enemies today but the fella is top class and has played a huge part in the turnaround of our club.Yosser {Ed001's Note - I am sorry but anyone who supports the 39th game proposal should be removed, that whole idea was a joke and purely about greed.}
To be fair this proposal by Ayre has no legs. Liverpool have no backing and United & Chelsea have made it clear that they are not interested in going down this road. Liverpool need 14 clubs to agree with them to make this possible, they currently have no clubs, so this will not happen.
Sydney!
Ayre, Henry and the rest are tasked with making as much money out of Liverpool as possible, not making Liverpool the "best club in the world". If that little penny hasn't dropped today with you "knowledgeable" fans, it never will.
Wake up and recognise that Henry's cynical charm offensive is all about his and his pals investment!
I don't think it's a proposal as such Sydney, more a comment in a discussion with a journalist. It's surely no surprise though, the idea has been out there for some time. It's nothing new, just headline making IMO.
The Real KB
That post is off sir Alex , lot's of love instead of a kiss c'mon mate . K96 .
12 Oct 2011 13:18:39
hey ed, a player i've been looking at quite closely lately is mauricio isla from udinese, he is extremely versatile and can play as a defender winger or playmaker and seeing as he is only 23 and already a top class player i would like to know your opinion of him and whether you think liverpool should sign him in january? {Ed001's Note - I would love him to sign, I have kept a close eye on Chile for the last few years since I took the role of Chile manager on an old game of FM. I remember watching a kid's team containing Isla, Sanchez and Arturo Vidal, they were awesome to watch. Those 3 in particular stood out and have continued to stand out as they progressed and moved to Europe. The problem is that he went to Udinese, they are a pain to deal with apparently, hence why Sanchez had to pretty much force a move to Barca.}
Lets not all get into this again wherever youre from a red is a red whether you attend every game or are just there in spirit so lets not get into this again lets be as one and support our lads moving forward and enjoy winding up the mancs when we give them an ar*e kicking on sat.
REDhunty
12 Oct 2011 12:25:48
From the BBC website. Anyone else think this has got something to do with Ayres comments this morning? Can only be a good thing in my opinion, the beautiful game in this country has been ruined by money.
Football authorities have until March 2012 to implement sweeping changes to the way the sport is run or face the threat of government intervention.
A deadline of 29 February has been set for the Football Association to overhaul its board and bring in a new licensing system for the club game.
Failure to do so will result in government legislation.
"[Football's] governance has failed to keep up with the modern game," said Sports Minister Hugh Robertson.
"I believe there are improvements that can be made.
"[But] I do not want government to run football, so this is an opportunity for the football family to work together to benefit the game in the long-term."
Gillinho
{Ed002's Note - I suspect nothing will happen with respect to this.}
12 Oct 2011 12:23:13
Whilst Ed001 is a little harsh asking for Ayre to be removed because of his comments, I totally agree the move for individual TV rights in the long run would be catastrophic for our league.
I can understand quite clearly where Ayre is coming from, in fact in his actual position at the club it would be incompetent for him not to look at this. However that doesn't make it right, but since when has doing the right thing been the right thing?
His biggest mistake is to use/compare the Barca/Madrid model. I fail to see, at this present moment in time why any of the big 5 teams in the EPL could not compete with Barca/Madrid unless of course the clubs have recognised a real weakness towards teams in the EPL under the FFP that is so famously going to come into fashion in the next few years, and this may possibly be the driving force behind these comments and may really be a way of trying to get UEFA to level the playing field across Europe.
I suspect it is something to do with the advantage that these teams are getting on TV rights which will allow Madrid/Barca to carry on buying big players and outbidding even our biggest clubs under the FFP rules.
Certainly if the case was just about grabbing as much money for the club as possible, then I along with thousands of fans do not want a La Liga style league. There are only a handful of games worth watching in that league and recently with Mourinho at Madrid, the El Clasico is fast being a farce and not the great spectacle it is rumoured to be.
The top league should never have teams that are so inept they can be beaten 6-0/8-0, yet it is becoming a regular occurrence in La Liga. I'm already bored of any games with Barca in, particularly at home, as the teams are so scared to even try, it's embarrassing.
Is this what we want? Funny how talk of Bolton cropped up because in their last few games they have been absolutely awful against LFC, CFc (small c) & MUFc (same small c) and they have been utterly embarrassing and so easy to beat. The game against Chelsea was over as a spectacle in 15 mins.
Replicate this with 13 other teams and we have a 4/5 team league. Boring. We all want to watch Sunderland giving the manc's a really hard game and taking points off them, the same goes with the Villa against Chelsea, WBA verses Arsenal and Newcastle verses Spurs.
The excitement that the PL brings not just to games concerning our own team but all the fixtures is what we really want to see. There's nothing better than LFC winning in the Saturday lunchtime kick off and then watching the rest of the football all weekend knowing that the 'lower' teams could easily take points off your rivals.
At the end of the day we're football fans and we want to see exciting, close, competitive football matches. I think I would really lose some love of the sport if these elements were not present, game in, game out every single week.
This can only happen if the money is spread equally. Likewise there is little point in loaning out your younger players if the standard is utterly awful lower down the leagues as that completely misses the whole point of doing so.
Premier League clubs have a responsibility to ensure the game is as competitive as possible. In order for this to remain, money must be shared out
Bob the Red
Ayre is looking at potential revenue stream. For example, imagine if LFCtv had the sole rights to all Liverpool games and instead of Sky you could subscribe to them and get every single game they play. How much would you pay for that as opposed to Sky Sport? Me personally, £500 plus a year. Then consider that being opened globally. A lorra lorra lolly.
My personal solving of the issues of TV Broadcasting deal splits.
English deal
80% split equally
20% facilities fees
Overseas deal
50% split equally
50% based on league position
Bob
What do you make of the likelihood of a breakaway European Super League ?
The big clubs are getting bigger and more powerful. It may, in the end, be the only way for punters to see genuinely contested league football. That is if you're a supporter of one of those sides.
If you're not....?
The Real KB
I said years ago that this could happean & i think its got a very good chance of becoming a reality.
BLUE MOON.
12 Oct 2011 12:11:29
Liverpool's Ian Ayre is negotiating exclusive TV rights to broadcast Liverpool's glory years with the History Channel.
Sir Alex x
That joke is as old as you, you need to find a girlfriend.
Bill Kenwright is negotiating Everton's tv rights with the Internet site Mad Bid.com. Some lucky viewer could buy the tv rights, players and The Shed (Goodison), for as little as £12.
So get calling, it could be you.
Blair Mayne YNWA
Blair does that £12 valuation include the £7.50 that was thrown at our players?
Scouse Pride
12 Oct 2011 09:38:21
Shock ! Horror !
Ed002, I think I am finally getting the gist of the FFP.
Lol. Your life has not been in vain.
The Real KB
12 Oct 2011 08:35:36
Eds do you actually think Ian ayres could be removed for his comments?
Mighty reds {Ed002's Note - Of course not.}
I'm delighted to see that Ed 002 has some sense.
Red Owl {Ed001's Note - nobody said he will be, I said he should be for his support of all the proposals that are incredibly stupid and will rip the league apart and destroy it as a competition. There is a reason there is so little support for these proposals.}
12 Oct 2011 06:01:04
Why are we looking to spend yet more money for a replacement for Carragher when we already have Danny wilson. He will slot in nicely with coates with the likes of the young Kelly /Flanagan /Robinson coming through to the first team Liverpool for once have good young players ready to step up .
Lets spend some money on another Winger to replace kuyt's (he cant go on forever)
Ever Banega comes to mind he can play anywhere
And also a player that can play along side Suarez not to the side or just behind but along side .
Bellamy is the best partner by far so far but yet again to old
12 Oct 2011 00:41:05
What do you think of Ayres comments Ed about our own tv rights? What could happen if he gets enough support?
Thanks...
Blair Mayne YNWA {Ed001's Note - I am not keen on the idea of separate TV rights, the only thing it actually does is destroy competitiveness of the league as a whole. We will see teams in the lower leagues struggling more and more. I would be glad to see Ian Ayres removed for this and his support of the 39th Premier League game. He is only thinking of the money and nothing else. It just doesn't sit right with me, we need the lower leagues to be strong, it is the platform that holds up the Prem.}
Ed001 - How would you feel about the top teams in the PL getting a bigger share, but the lesser teams still getting the same deal? The gap would open up even more between the top teams and the bottom teams, but the bottom teams will still get the same amount of dough. In other words Sky making up the rest of the money? Andy Green is fuming about this for the same reasons as you, he says United would be the biggest winners through this and would be disgusted if United done this.
But if the bottom clubs received the same amount of dough, whats the difference between this and the streaming revenues?
Sydney! {Ed001's Note - I would still prefer everyone to get an equal share, I just think this is about the rich getting richer and sticking two fingers up to everyone else.}
Surely Ian Ayre would be failing in his remit if he did not seek to strengthen Liverpool as much as much as possible in financial and commercial terms. Besides, it might be no great loss if Murdoch's grip on the English game could be loosened a little.
Red Owl
What? Are you serious? {Ed001's Note - who?}
Ed001 - True Ed, but Liverpool do need to find extra revenue streams to compete with the big boys. Please don't take that as a dig because it's genuinely not.
Sydney! {Ed001's Note - the stadium issue is the main problem, in every other respect Liverpool are already catching up to the likes of United, that was one thing that H&G did, they set the club on the road to true professionalism. Unlike the rot of Moores' time in charge, the club is working on improving its weaknesses.}
Ed001 - Perhaps mate, but United's revenue was £331m for last season and that will rise much more over the next couple of years. Liverpool's revenue is around £165m (without CL), £190m (with CL) and an extra 20k in capacity is not going to close the gap that much. I think Ayre is just trying to think of ways around it. It's not as though he wants a higher percentage of the UK Sky rights, he wants a bit more of Sky's overseas rights.
Sydney! {Ed001's Note - please don't start on about finances again, you never take into account any of the outgoings. United do not get 331m or anything like it to spend, the spending power of both is extremely similar. That is the only thing that matters, not how much income, but how much profit.}
Ed001 - I know that Ed, but United did make a £30m profit last year and bought back £64m worth of bonds. If we never bought back £64 worth of bonds then how much profit would have been made then? I am not being bitter or trying to wind you up Ed, I am trying to understand what Ayre is thinking.
Sydney!