Big Day for TV Rights

JimsAlterEgo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/10/pubs_v_premier_league.html

Pubs v Premier League

In the 19 years since the formation of the Premier League, the value of the competition's television rights has gone from £304m to a staggering £3.2bn.

It is one of the country's most successful exports and whenever Prime Minister David Cameron goes on trade missions abroad, as he did to Russia last month; he often takes chief executive Richard Scudamore with him as an example of a thriving British business.

And yet on Tuesday the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will deliver a ruling which could deal the League and its lucrative TV rights model a major blow.

Unlikely though it might seem, the case all centres on a Portsmouth pub, the Red, White and Blue, and its landlady, Karen Murphy. She was fined back in 2006 for showing her customers live Premier League matches accessed via a Greek service and an illegal decoder.

The Premier League states UK citizens should only be able to watch live matches through Sky and, to a lesser extent, ESPN. For pubs the cost of screening matches is high, making it attractive for them to look for cheaper alternatives.

Mrs Murphy appealed against the decision saying that the European Union's laws on the free movement of trade and services inside the single market meant she should be entitled to buy her live football from any European country she should choose.

In March, a non-binding opinion from the ECJ's advocate general Juliane Kokot seemed to back her argument. Kokot stated that broadcasters cannot stop customers using cheaper foreign satellite TV services.

There is no guarantee that the court will follow that opinion tomorrow. But even senior Premier League sources admit it is unlikely that it will go against it.

So what does this potentially mean to the League and Sky, whose business model is so reliant on live top flight football?

The first thing to say is that tomorrow's decision is unlikely to be clear cut. Although the Kokot advice was interpreted as a potential setback for the League's case, the League argues it was much more complicated than that.

And even if the court delivers a clear judgment, it is only guidance for the UK High Court, which must then decide whether to rubber stamp its findings.

The next point to make is that the impact on the League's rights in Europe is likely to be negligible. Of the £1.4bn it earns from selling its rights abroad, just £130m, less than 10 per cent, comes from Europe.

The big problem is a free for all in the UK market could seriously damage Sky's exclusivity for which it pays £1.8bn over the three years 2010-2013. Why would Sky continue to pay that money - money which underpins clubs' vast spending on players' wages and salaries every year - if foreign broadcasters are given the freedom to undercut them.

In response to such a verdict Sky might feel the need to lower their prices and therefore pay less to the League for its rights. That could have a massive knock-on effect on clubs who are already stretched.

However the League and its principal adviser on TV rights David Kogan have become adept at hurdling obstacles put in their path by regulators.

In the event of a ruling which backs Mrs Murphy's appeal, the League is likely to create one Europe-wide live TV rights package which Sky or another pan-European broadcaster could buy for the same sort of money Sky currently pay, if not more. They could then either show it on the continent themselves or sub licence to foreign TV companies.

The League, which wants to start its latest auction for the 2013-2016 package before the end of the season, is therefore confident that whatever the outcome tomorrow, its business model will continue to thrive.

But the impact on smaller sports could be significant as the markets for their rights will shrink. And the effect on other creative sectors like the film industry, which also sells exclusive content territory by territory, could be devastating.

Looking a bit further ahead the much bigger danger for football, indeed all sports, is the rapid blurring of the lines between distribution and access to live sport.

Rights holders used to be able to sell rights platform by platform - TV, radio, online, mobile and so on. But it's already difficult to tell the difference between a traditional TV and an iPad.

That will only become more blurred in the future and in response it has become necessary for rights holders to develop time sensitive packages with media companies now bidding for live, near live, highlights and archive rights.

For the Premier League and other big rights holders protecting those in the face of illegal streaming of matches from pirate websites is a far bigger threat than the ECJ's ruling tomorrow.

Personally I would love to see a way to buy the rights to each teams matches.

Crazy Horse 6

The money needs to be divided amongest all teams evenly. If the likes of Liverpool,City and Arsenal get their own TV's deals it will kill of the smaller clubs completely.

AnCapaillMor

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/10/pubs_v_premier_league.html



Personally I would love to see a way to buy the rights to each teams matches.

Bad idea, you'll get a spain or scotland or germany where the top 2-3 get most of the money and the gap will widen between top and everyone else.

JimsAlterEgo

I am not saying the clubs do their own deals but that I can subscribe to my own club via someone like sky. The equal payment to clubs needs to remain.

Sky are going to need to rethink their model going forward.

Le King

We would rule the world should this happen.

It would massively benefit us. Bad thing for competition but good for us. I'd say a few top clubs have a hand in this too.

JimsAlterEgo

They are also going to have to think about internet rights as well as conventional tv. The mecca would be an official site that you could buy a season subscription to and watch any match you want in high quality streaming. People would pay for this.

daithijjj

The ruling given has stated that BskyB are breaching European competition law.

Delboy5

Pub can use foreign decoder for Premier League gamesComments (85)

A pub landlady has won the latest stage of her fight to air Premier League games using a foreign TV decoder.

Karen Murphy had to pay nearly £8,000 in fines and costs for using a cheaper Greek decoder in her Portsmouth pub to bypass controls over match screening.

But she took her case to the European Court of Justice.

The ECJ now says national laws which prohibit the import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards are contrary to the freedom to provide services.

The decision could trigger a major shake-up for the Premier League and its current exclusive agreements with Sky Sports and ESPN.

"In practical terms, the Premier League will now have to decide how it wishes to re-tender its rights," said sports media lawyer Daniel Geey of Field Fisher Waterhouse solicitors.

"There can be little doubt it will have contingency plans ready to go and has various options available.

"Be it a pan-EU tender, selling in only certain EU member states or devising a plan to start its own channel, they will be deciding how best to maximise the value of their product to ensure any revenue shortfall is minimised."

However, the ECJ did add that while live matches were not protected by copyright, any surrounding media, such as any opening video sequence, the Premier League anthem, pre-recorded films showing highlights of recent Premier League matches and various graphics, were "works" protected by copyright.

To use any of these parts of a broadcast, a pub would need the permission of the Premier League.

The findings will now go to the High Court in London, which had sent the matter to the ECJ for guidance, for a final ruling

Soby

^^Did this happen before.Im getting the strangest deja vu.About it being a woman in a pub and everything ?

iregk

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

Bad idea, you'll get a spain or scotland or germany where the top 2-3 get most of the money and the gap will widen between top and everyone else.

That doesn't happen in Germany. Germany operates on a shared resources deal which sees the earnings spread much more evenly through the league. Bayern are still well ahead due to their enormous merchandise deals and their own individual TV channel.

Fr Tod Umptious

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

They are also going to have to think about internet rights as well as conventional tv. The mecca would be an official site that you could buy a season subscription to and watch any match you want in high quality streaming. People would pay for this.

Just a mlb.tv do.

You can buy a package for approx $100+ and get any game you want all season, the price is then reduced as the season progresses.

I am not sure if there are 'blackouts' i.e not being able to view a game online if it is on TV in the same area you are in.

Blackouts are something that would have to be considered in the UK to resolve the 3pm kick off problem.

Fr Tod Umptious

Le King wrote: »

We would rule the world should this happen.

It would massively benefit us. Bad thing for competition but good for us. I'd say a few top clubs have a hand in this too.

Not meaning to be a p**ck or anything but who are you taking about ?

Minstrel27

TV rights in the UK are very restrictive and for pubs extremely expensive. The greed of Sky and the PL is going to come back and bite them.

I am amazed that all games are not being offered at least online at this stage.

the_one_&_only

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,,11661_7222902,00.html

The Premier League have lost their case in the European Court of Justice against a pub landlady who used a foreign decoder to show live matches at 3pm on Saturdays.

The ruling by the ECJ could have major implications for how the Premier League sell their broadcast rights both in Britain and Europe.

The ECJ said in a statement: "A system of licences for the broadcasting of football matches which grants broadcasters territorial exclusivity on a member state basis and which prohibits television viewers from watching the broadcasts with a decoder card in other member states is contrary to EU law."

The case came to the ECJ after Portsmouth publican Karen Murphy appealed after losing a court action brought against her by the Premier League for using the Greek satellite decoder.

The case in the ECJ also involves the suppliers of such decoder cards to those pubs.

In its judgment, the ECJ ruled: "National legislation which prohibits the import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards is contrary to the freedom to provide services and cannot be justified either in light of the objective of protecting intellectual property rights or by the objective of encouraging the public to attend football stadiums."

The implications of the ruling could not just affect the Premier League but every sport that sells broadcast rights on a country-by-country basis. It is also how UEFA, for example, sell the rights for the Champions League. It could also affect the sale of TV programmes generally across Europe.

The ECJ also ruled that only the opening video sequence, the Premier League anthem, and pre-recorded clips showing highlights of recent Premier League matches and various graphics could be protected by copyright.

"By contrast, the matches themselves are not works enjoying such protection," says the ruling.

Pubs would have to obtain permission to broadcast those opening sequences, said the ruling, but not the match itself.

The Premier League have yet to comment on the ruling.

homerjay2005

what is stopping the likes of United breaking away from this tv deal when the next one expires and going on their own?

mike65

Nothing as far as I know, the only question for an individual club is whether they are big enough to manage their own affairs. Manchester Utd would be of course.

(if the deal has expired they are not breaking away!)

Fr Tod Umptious

Minstrel27 wrote: »

TV rights in the UK are very restrictive and for pubs extremely expensive. The greed of Sky and the PL is going to come back and bite them.

I am amazed that all games are not being offered at least online at this stage.

Well I'm not convinced that an online package is going to be a whole lot cheaper.

Going by US sports there is a big difference between what you pay for a MLB online package and an NFL one.

Right now with 13 weeks left in the season you have to pay e150 for an NFL game pass, and that does not include the playoffs

For MLB the whole season is less than e150.

The NFL season only consist of 16 games whereas the MLB season consists of 162.

MLB TV rights are sold individually by teams in their local markets, NFL rights are sold on a nationwide basis to the network stations (Fox, CBS, NBC etc), as a result the NFL right are more expensive and more lucrative to a network than the MLB rights.

I believe with the current popularity of the EPL the price of any potential online package will be closer to the NFL price than the MLB one.

Plus the TV rights are one factor in keeping the EPL bubble inflated and I doubt the league will be quick to give up on potential revenue if the platform includes online

Davidth88

Fair play to this publican having the ' balls ' to take on Sky


... I wonder if Max Mosley is backing her .....



Not sure what the implications are , are we now going to see more games on different decoders , so instead of watching the 4pm Sunday game on ' SUPER SUNDAY SKY ' we watch it on Star TV from Africa ?

homerjay2005

mike65 wrote: »

Nothing as far as I know, the only question for an individual club is whether they are big enough to manage their own affairs. Manchester Utd would be of course.

(if the deal has expired they are not breaking away!)

i think united and to a lesser extent liverpool could easily have their own tv rights and make alot more money than they do now.

mike65

Is it a route the EPL clubs would want to go down though? Look at Spain with its crazy disparity between the top 2 and the rest.

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/sports/football/deloitte-football-money-league-2011/1cf28c129dffd210VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm

The Sparrow

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i think united and to a lesser extent liverpool could easily have their own tv rights and make alot more money than they do now.

If they really wanted that, those clubs could already have it. It seems to me that they realise that long term it would be bad for business as it would ultimately result in a less competitive league.

It would be very short term thinking for Utd or Liverpool to start negotiating their own tv rights because that would really hurt the rest of the Premier League and ultimately hurt those clubs.

JimsAlterEgo

mike65 wrote: »

Is it a route the EPL clubs would want to go down though? Look at Spain with its crazy disparity between the top 2 and the rest.

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/sports/football/deloitte-football-money-league-2011/1cf28c129dffd210VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm

i believe theres a gentlemans agreement that they all negotiate together, I can see clubs maybe trying to go online on their own.

Mitch Connor

I can't see United, or anyone, opting out of a collective deal for domestic rights - but I can certainly see United (and others) looking at being allowed to do their own deals in Asia/America.

homerjay2005

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I can't see United, or anyone, opting out of a collective deal for domestic rights - but I can certainly see United (and others) looking at being allowed to do their own deals in Asia/America.

neither can i, but it is possible, consider 2 thigns at united -

1 - glazers and how good they are at generating money. all they need to do is get deals in 10 or so countries around the world and they could easily make 100 million a year.

2 - fergie said about 3 weeks ago that united "get treated like s*it"...look at things like rios 8 month ban, evras nonsense 5 game ban, fergies 5 game ban, martin atkinson costing united a league title in 09/10, rooney v west ham etc etc etc

if one or two more of these happened again, you could see united having enough, pulling out of interviews, going on their own. unlikely, but it could happen if things got sour.

what does each PL club get every season, 45million?

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Not meaning to be a p**ck or anything but who are you taking about ?

Arsenal

Mr Alan

homerjay2005 wrote: »

2 - fergie said about 3 weeks ago that united "get treated like s*it"...look at things like rios 8 month ban, evras nonsense 5 game ban, fergies 5 game ban, martin atkinson costing united a league title in 09/10, rooney v west ham etc etc etc

if one or two more of these happened again, you could see united having enough, pulling out of interviews, going on their own. unlikely, but it could happen if things got sour.

mike65

homerjay2005 wrote: »

neither can i, but it is possible, consider 2 thigns at united -

1 - glazers and how good they are at generating money. all they need to do is get deals in 10 or so countries around the world and they could easily make 100 million a year.

2 - fergie said about 3 weeks ago that united "get treated like s*it"...look at things like rios 8 month ban, evras nonsense 5 game ban, fergies 5 game ban, martin atkinson costing united a league title in 09/10, rooney v west ham etc etc etc

if one or two more of these happened again, you could see united having enough, pulling out of interviews, going on their own. unlikely, but it could happen if things got sour.

what does each PL club get every season, 45million?

:eek: Did you just bang your head?

_blank_

rarnes1 wrote: »

Arsenal

Le King is United isn't he.

L'Prof is Arsenal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15162241

iregk

homerjay2005 wrote: »

2 - fergie said about 3 weeks ago that united "get treated like s*it"...look at things like rios 8 month ban, evras nonsense 5 game ban, fergies 5 game ban, martin atkinson costing united a league title in 09/10, rooney v west ham etc etc etc

if one or two more of these happened again, you could see united having enough, pulling out of interviews, going on their own. unlikely, but it could happen if things got sour.

Des

Des wrote: »

Le King is United isn't he.

L'Prof is Arsenal.

My bad.

Always get the two lads mixed up

homerjay2005

homerjay2005 wrote: »

neither can i, but it is possible, consider 2 thigns at united -

1 - glazers and how good they are at generating money. all they need to do is get deals in 10 or so countries around the world and they could easily make 100 million a year.

2 - fergie said about 3 weeks ago that united "get treated like s*it"...look at things like rios 8 month ban, evras nonsense 5 game ban, fergies 5 game ban, martin atkinson costing united a league title in 09/10, rooney v west ham etc etc etc

if one or two more of these happened again, you could see united having enough, pulling out of interviews, going on their own. unlikely, but it could happen if things got sour.

what does each PL club get every season, 45million?

Jeez, I've read some tripe the last few days and this is right up near the top of the pile.

homerjay2005

rarnes1 wrote: »

Jeez, I've read some tripe the last few days and this is right up near the top of the pile.

lol...no surprise the liverpool fanboys are up in arms over my post..so you think that if the glazers went with the idea that they can make maybe 100million extra a year on its own, that getting one over on the fa, wouldnt be at least a factor? and i said it is unlikely to happen, but my post about the fa and fergie, is spot on. here is the quote article, this was said in the past 3 weeks.

Sir Alex Ferguson has no particular reason to love the English Football Association.

They are the ones who discipline his players when they skip drug tests, appoint referees who occasionally don’t award his side penalties, fine him when he publicly berates referees and probably worst of all, they pick the England team.

In a rare outburst, Sir Alex dropped an expletive when commenting about them.

“The FA may realise who has produced more players for their country than any club in the world. Maybe they will realise how important we are to England instead of treating us like ****.”

Pro. F

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

i believe theres a gentlemans agreement that they all negotiate together, I can see clubs maybe trying to go online on their own.

Online is covered by the current TV rights deal. Mobile content is not covered in it so United have been making some money selling exclusive coverage packages for mobile content in a few countries - Rep. South Africa, Malaysia and maybe a few others iirc. I'm kind of surprised and I don't know why there haven't been more countries signed up like this for United, maybe I just missed them.

I always thought the reason the big boys never tried to go alone on the coverage deals was because they would be kicked out of the league if they did. Not so much a gentleman's agreement as a democracy protecting the interest of the majority.

homerjay2005

Pro. F wrote: »

I always thought the reason the big boys never tried to go alone on the coverage deals was because they would be kicked out of the league if they did. Not so much a gentleman's agreement as a democracy protecting the interest of the majority.

thats a different story then, does anybody know for sure? there has to be somethng there, as lets face it, the majority of the money is generted by the top 4 or 5 teams. would people have a sky package to watch stoke, norwich, wigan and blackburn as part of "super sunday"?

Mountjoy Mugger

Fr Tod Umptious

homerjay2005 wrote: »

thats a different story then, does anybody know for sure? there has to be somethng there, as lets face it, the majority of the money is generted by the top 4 or 5 teams. would people have a sky package to watch stoke, norwich, wigan and blackburn as part of "super sunday"?

Well this is almost a repeat of what happened 20 years ago with the formation of the EPL.

At the time the top tier clubs wanted to start making decisions that were in their own interest but they were constrained by the other 72 odd below them.

Thus the breakaway premiership in 1992.

This issue is going to come to a head sooner rather tan later and I expect the compromise will be to allow teams make individual international deals, but UK deals would remain collective.

That would give Utd, Liverpool and to a leers extent Chelsea the new revenue streams they desire without leaving the existing league.

homerjay2005

homerjay2005 wrote: »

lol...no surprise the liverpool fanboys are up in arms over my post..so you think that if the glazers went with the idea that they can make maybe 100million extra a year on its own, that getting one over on the fa, wouldnt be at least a factor? and i said it is unlikely to happen, but my post about the fa and fergie, is spot on. here is the quote article, this was said in the past 3 weeks.

Nothing to do with me being a Liverpool fan

United couldn't "go alone" as it would mean them out being out on a limb in England I'd assume.The conspiracy theory stuff was ridiculous too.

Pro. F

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well this is almost a repeat of what happened 20 years ago with the formation of the EPL.

At the time the top tier clubs wanted to start making decisions that were in their own interest but they were constrained by the other 72 odd below them.

Thus the breakaway premiership in 1992.

This issue is going to come to a head sooner rather tan later and I expect the compromise will be to allow teams make individual international deals, but UK deals would remain collective.

That would give Utd, Liverpool and to a leers extent Chelsea the new revenue streams they desire without leaving the existing league.

I don't see any reason why the rest of the teams would budge at all on the negotiation of the deals. The big boys need a league to compete in so the rest of the league can demand equal distribution of the income. The big boys have no serious threat they can bring to the negotiation.

homerjay2005

rarnes1 wrote: »

Nothing to do with me being a Liverpool fan

United couldn't "go alone" as it would mean them out being out on a limb in England I'd assume.The conspiracy theory stuff was ridiculous too.

i think, united and liverpool would have the fa over a barrel if they said, right, we are pulling out. what would/could the fa do?

throw them out, so any potential deal lose its appeal anyway? i would estimate if united and liverpool pulled out, the 1.8 billion deal would be worth half that straight away. i just cant see any tv company buying a deal, that didnt include them 2 in it, united for one are a huge draw all over the world, liverpool not far behind.

a PL without united and liverpool, just is not imaginable in terms of money.

can anybody confirm, if teams are allowed to pull out of tv deals, when they next one expires?

Pro. F

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i think, united and liverpool would have the fa over a barrel if they said, right, we are pulling out. what would/could the fa do?

throw them out, so any potential deal lose its appeal anyway? i would estimate if united and liverpool pulled out, the 1.8 billion deal would be worth half that straight away. i just cant see any tv company buying a deal, that didnt include them 2 in it, united for one are a huge draw all over the world, liverpool not far behind.

a PL without united and liverpool, just is not imaginable in terms of money.

If the big boys were thrown out of the league they would lose a lot more than the rest of the teams would lose.

The rest of the teams would lose money on their TV deal. The big boys would be left playing friendlies against non league teams. They wouldn't keep their world wide fan base for very long with that kind of set up.

Fr Tod Umptious

Pro. F wrote: »

I don't see any reason why the rest of the teams would budge at all on the negotiation of the deals. The big boys need a league to compete in so the rest of the league can demand equal distribution of the income. The big boys have no serious threat they can bring to the negotiation.

That's why I said there would be a compromise on international rights and maybe even specifically America\Asia rights

A lot of teams in the league are living on the coat tails of the top 4 or 5.

No one in the UK or Eire is going to but Sky Sports to watch Wigan, Stoke or Blackburn, and no Asia or US TV company is buying rights so that they can beam the aforementioned to the millions of unwashed..

Therefore 75% of the EPL have a lot to loose if 25% threaten to breakway.

Fr Tod Umptious

Pro. F wrote: »

If the big boys were thrown out of the league they would lose a lot more than the rest of the teams would lose.

The rest of the teams would lose money on their TV deal. The big boys would be left playing friendlies against non league teams. They wouldn't keep their world wide fan base for very long with that kind of set up.

Like a lot of things in this world all this could be part of a larger plan.

Utd and Liverpool pulling out of the EPL would not happen in isolation by someone or other throwing a hissy fit over TV rights

If Utd and Liverpool were to pull out of the league they would not do so on a whim and not without an alternative backup in place. That alternative backup could be a pan European league that would aslo include the top of Spain, Italy etc.

Pro. F

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's why I said there would be a compromise on international rights and maybe even specifically America\Asia rights

A lot of teams in the league are living on the coat tails of the top 4 or 5.

No one in the UK or Eire is going to but Sky Sports to watch Wigan, Stoke or Blackburn, and no Asia or US TV company is buying rights so that they can beam the aforementioned to the millions of unwashed.

A compromise is only required when there is some sort of balance of bargaining power. There isn't in this case. The top few teams can't do anything without a league to compete in so they have no serious alternative they can threaten the rest of the PL with.

The only serious threat is the European super league thing, but UEFA are doing their best to control that and it isn't making any signs of progressing.

Edit: I see you mentioned the European league in the next post. If that becomes a proper alternative then the big boys will have something to bargain with. Until then, they don't.

homerjay2005

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i think, united and liverpool would have the fa over a barrel if they said, right, we are pulling out. what would/could the fa do?

throw them out, so any potential deal lose its appeal anyway? i would estimate if united and liverpool pulled out, the 1.8 billion deal would be worth half that straight away. i just cant see any tv company buying a deal, that didnt include them 2 in it, united for one are a huge draw all over the world, liverpool not far behind.

a PL without united and liverpool, just is not imaginable in terms of money.

can anybody confirm, if teams are allowed to pull out of tv deals, when they next one expires?

I don't think it'd be as simple as teams pulling out and going fot theior own tv deals.

Surely there are contracts with the PL and penalties for breech of contracts. the most severe being expelled from the PL.

homerjay2005

rarnes1 wrote: »

I don't think it'd be as simple as teams pulling out and going fot theior own tv deals.

Surely there are contracts with the PL and penalties for breech of contracts. the most severe being expelled from the PL.

well until we know what exactly they can and cant do, we wont know.

my stance is, that if united pulled out, and remained in the league, the fa would lose up to 50% of their income from tv deals, maybe more.

whether united are allowed to do that, and remain in the league, is another thing, but surely if the deal is expired, the PL can do nothing about it?

flahavaj

homerjay2005 wrote: »

lol...no surprise the liverpool fanboys are up in arms over my post..so you think that if the glazers went with the idea that they can make maybe 100million extra a year on its own, that getting one over on the fa, wouldnt be at least a factor? and i said it is unlikely to happen, but my post about the fa and fergie, is spot on. here is the quote article, this was said in the past 3 weeks.

Having a gripe with the FA (justified or unjustified) has little or nothing to do with United pulling out of a TV deal homer. They are almost completely unrelated. I also doubt United would make potentially damaging business decisions based on Fergie's latest media rants.

flahavaj

flahavaj wrote: »

Having a gripe with the FA (justified or unjustified) has little or nothing to do with United pulling out of a TV deal homer. They are almost completely unrelated. I also doubt United would make potentially damaging business decisions based on Fergie's latest media rants.

Plus Fergie's rants quite often are (quite cleverly may I add) to divert attention away from something else i.e. team performance etc. He's been doing it for years.

Pro. F

homerjay2005 wrote: »

whether united are allowed to do that, and remain in the league, is another thing, but surely if the deal is expired, the PL can do nothing about it?

Unless some major, game changing factor, like the European super league, comes into play then the bargaining chips are going to the be same as the last time the deal was negotiated. If the PL had the power to kick out teams who didn't sign up to the rights deal that time then they will obviously still have the same power this time.

invinciblePRSTV

homerjay2005 wrote: »

well until we know what exactly they can and cant do, we wont know.

We know that the PL clubs act unaminously in their decision making process, and that they negotiate TV deals on this basis. If one club objects any proposal is scuppered.

Now that you know this....

homerjay2005 wrote: »

my stance is, that if united pulled out, and remained in the league, the fa would lose up to 50% of their income from tv deals, maybe more.

If Man Utd want to negotiate a seperate TV deal away from the collective one negotiated by the PL then they would fail as soon as it went to a vote of the PL chairmen. The only way I could envisage it working is if Utd pledged to pay a substantial % of whatever individual deal they negotiated back to the PL for distribution. That % would be so substantial imo that it would make the deal uneconomical for the club to negotiate it in the first place.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

whether united are allowed to do that, and remain in the league, is another thing, but surely if the deal is expired, the PL can do nothing about it?

Interesting point, what would clubs do if one club steadfastly refused to agree to any new deal? I reckon the dissenting club would eventually fall in line with the rest of the PL clubs.

poolboy

homerjay2005 wrote: »

neither can i, but it is possible, consider 2 thigns at united -

1 - glazers and how good they are at generating money. all they need to do is get deals in 10 or so countries around the world and they could easily make 100 million a year.

2 - fergie said about 3 weeks ago that united "get treated like s*it"...look at things like rios 8 month ban, evras nonsense 5 game ban, fergies 5 game ban, martin atkinson costing united a league title in 09/10, rooney v west ham etc etc etc

if one or two more of these happened again, you could see united having enough, pulling out of interviews, going on their own. unlikely, but it could happen if things got sour.

what does each PL club get every season, 45million?

:eek: I dont blame homerjay i blame myself for reading it