|
Post by FullerMagic on May 11, 2014 16:04:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 16:09:31 GMT
Kerching. Bring on the summer!
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on May 14, 2014 14:03:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on May 14, 2014 14:41:50 GMT
Should be on telly more than 7 times next season.
Nice that we got paid for 10... :-)
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 14, 2014 14:49:27 GMT
I can't really understand why West Ham were on live TV 14 times - they were pretty crap at the start of the season and moderately crap for the rest of it. In what way shape or form were they worth twice the number of live games as us?
I can understand Newcastle's 14 games they had a good first half of the season and the TV companies were not to know how dire they would be in the second half.
Having said that - as more live TV = fewer 3pm starts, it is better for ticket holding fans that we are on as little as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 14:52:06 GMT
I can't really understand why West Ham were on live TV 14 times - they were pretty crap at the start of the season and moderately crap for the rest of it. In what way shape or form were they worth twice the number of live games as us? I can understand Newcastle's 14 games they had a good first half of the season and the TV companies were not to know how dire they would be in the second half. Having said that - as more live TV = fewer 3pm starts, it is better for ticket holding fans that we are on as little as possible. it'll simply be because of the name of the club. more people around the world will have heard of West Ham than Stoke so more people will therefore want to watch them.simples....not right but that's the way it goes, the televised games they choose will have little to do with just the UK audience.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 14, 2014 14:54:01 GMT
I can't really understand why West Ham were on live TV 14 times - they were pretty crap at the start of the season and moderately crap for the rest of it. In what way shape or form were they worth twice the number of live games as us? I can understand Newcastle's 14 games they had a good first half of the season and the TV companies were not to know how dire they would be in the second half. Having said that - as more live TV = fewer 3pm starts, it is better for ticket holding fans that we are on as little as possible. it'll simply be because of the name of the club. more people around the world will have heard of West Ham than Stoke so more people will therefore want to watch them.simples....not right but that's the way it goes, the televised games they choose will have little to do with just the UK audience. Yes but the live games we are talking about (in that column) are the UK TV live games NOT the World Wide Live games.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 14:58:59 GMT
it'll simply be because of the name of the club. more people around the world will have heard of West Ham than Stoke so more people will therefore want to watch them.simples....not right but that's the way it goes, the televised games they choose will have little to do with just the UK audience. Yes but the live games we are talking about (in that column) are the UK TV live games NOT the World Wide Live games. in which case it's a sodding mystery!!! most West Ham fans have publically said how even they can't stand watching them week in week out so god only knows. suppose we'd actually have to see which clubs they were playing in those games. if they were big clubs and/or other london clubs then that may be the reason why, hard to tell without seeing which actual fixtures they covered.
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on May 14, 2014 15:12:22 GMT
Yes but the live games we are talking about (in that column) are the UK TV live games NOT the World Wide Live games. in which case it's a sodding mystery!!! most West Ham fans have publically said how even they can't stand watching them week in week out so god only knows. suppose we'd actually have to see which clubs they were playing in those games. if they were big clubs and/or other london clubs then that may be the reason why, hard to tell without seeing which actual fixtures they covered. TV companies are slow to catch up - it is Wet Spam's silky passing football v Stoke's long ball physical game. By next year, this may balance out when they realise that the reverse is now actually true! As we made a £30m loss last year, will the increase just go to balancing the books? I do not imagine a £30m spending spree, but you'd hope that John Percy's predicted £20m transfer kitty is fairly near the mark.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 14, 2014 15:13:42 GMT
Football is suffering from massive inflation, while deflation stalks the global economies.
These sums of money are simply fueling wage inflation, agents fees and widening the gap between rich and poor, as well as the gap between the top 4/5 clubs, in every league in the world, and the rest.
In the PL, you only have to look at the table and the points tally to see what is happening. The league is dominated by the big 4/5, with the rest trying desperately to hang in there, the game may be as popular as ever, but money has created leagues within leagues, and it will get worse.
It is brilliant that Stoke have finished 9th, but let's have a system that gives clubs like Stoke a chance to finish in the top four, as was the case in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 15:20:25 GMT
Football is suffering from massive inflation, while deflation stalks the global economies. These sums of money are simply fueling wage inflation, agents fees and widening the gap between rich and poor, as well as the gap between the top 4/5 clubs, in every league in the world, and the rest. In the PL, you only have to look at the table and the points tally to see what is happening. The league is dominated by the big 4/5, with the rest trying desperately to hang in there, the game may be as popular as ever, but money has created leagues within leagues, and it will get worse. It is brilliant that Stoke have finished 9th, but let's have a system that gives clubs like Stoke a chance to finish in the top four, as was the case in the past. i don't know if the money is having such a dramatic effect in the Prem as you say geoff. this is the first time for years that Liverpool have competed and they finished nearly 30 points off the pace last year....Southampton have finished 8th, we've finished 9th, Everton have been top 6/7 for a while now and financially haven't got a pot to piss in! the "Top 4" aren't even the same top 4 that they were last year; last year the top 4 clubs would have been Man Utd., Chelsea, Man city and Arsenal and this year one of those only finished 2 places above us. given the fact that the bottom 10 were so tight for most of the season and for the first time ever in the Prem we've had 4 teams going for the title until the last few weeks i actually think the Prem now is far more competitive than it's ever been. to be fair if you look at most decades in the past you had teams that dominated the league even then when it wasn't all about money and only 1 or 2 other teams really competing against them for the title.a few years later it would then be a different couple of teams dominating etc. etc. it's not as if this has happened in the last few years or even just since the Prem started. i agree that the money does make a difference in terms of really competing for the title but that's far more down to billionaire investers than it is anything to do with TV money or prize money.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 14, 2014 15:20:37 GMT
in which case it's a sodding mystery!!! most West Ham fans have publically said how even they can't stand watching them week in week out so god only knows. suppose we'd actually have to see which clubs they were playing in those games. if they were big clubs and/or other london clubs then that may be the reason why, hard to tell without seeing which actual fixtures they covered. TV companies are slow to catch up - it is Wet Spam's silky passing football v Stoke's long ball physical game. By next year, this may balance out when they realise that the reverse is now actually true! As we made a £30m loss last year, will the increase just go to balancing the books? I do not imagine a £30m spending spree, but you'd hope that John Percy's predicted £20m transfer kitty is fairly near the mark. I'm fairly confident, Jezza, that the size of our "loss" last season was, at least in part, down to our bringing forward some bad news into the accounts before the Premier Leagues new Financial Fair Play rules cut in. I'd be gob smacked if we don't turn a modest profit for the financial year about to end. And that means that the coming year will be a bit of a year zero as far as spending is concerned. In other words, we got the belt tightening over earlier than we might have done - I bet John Percy is not far out with his estimate. Don't forget that we nearly spent money on Diouf last summer or in January so that transfer money and wages are still in the kitty. £20 million net on transfers would not surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by pedro23 on May 14, 2014 15:22:56 GMT
in which case it's a sodding mystery!!! most West Ham fans have publically said how even they can't stand watching them week in week out so god only knows. suppose we'd actually have to see which clubs they were playing in those games. if they were big clubs and/or other london clubs then that may be the reason why, hard to tell without seeing which actual fixtures they covered. TV companies are slow to catch up - it is Wet Spam's silky passing football v Stoke's long ball physical game. By next year, this may balance out when they realise that the reverse is now actually true! As we made a £30m loss last year, will the increase just go to balancing the books? I do not imagine a £30m spending spree, but you'd hope that John Percy's predicted £20m transfer kitty is fairly near the mark. As far as I know the 30m loss last year was due to player valuation depreciation, which is a book write off and a non cash item. As the Premier league funding is straight cash, it should certainly provide some funds for summer transfers. It will, as always depend on what the Coates family are willing to spend.
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on May 14, 2014 15:37:01 GMT
I can't really understand why West Ham were on live TV 14 times - they were pretty crap at the start of the season and moderately crap for the rest of it. In what way shape or form were they worth twice the number of live games as us? Legacy...
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 14, 2014 15:57:05 GMT
You are correct mick to say there has been movement at the top, but the gap between Southampton in 8th, and Arsenal in 4th, was 23 points, and in the case of Stoke 29 points.
Yes there can be the odd surprise at the top, but the message for me is clear, there are two leagues and the points gap is huge.
Whatever the cause of the gap in financial terms, it needs to be looked at.
Remember also mick the armchair football fan, and supporters of the top clubs, are not especially bothered about a game between Stoke and Southampton, or Aston Villa against W.B.A., other than it fills the time on a Sunday afternoon, no I think the gap has never been bigger and we have an elite group of clubs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 16:11:52 GMT
You are correct mick to say there has been movement at the top, but the gap between Southampton in 8th, and Arsenal in 4th, was 23 points, and in the case of Stoke 29 points. Yes there can be the odd surprise at the top, but the message for me is clear, there are two leagues and the points gap is huge. Whatever the cause of the gap in financial terms, it needs to be looked at. Remember also mick the armchair football fan, and supporters of the top clubs, are not especially bothered about a game between Stoke and Southampton, or Aston Villa against W.B.A., other than it fills the time on a Sunday afternoon, no I think the gap has never been bigger and we have an elite group of clubs. but as i said, Liverpool were nearly 30 points behind the leaders last year but have closed the gap massively without spending tens of millions since last year.Southampton were 14th last year and came 8th improving by 15 points without even playing two thirds of their transfers regularly....they haven't done that through TV money....the teams at the top aren't there because of the TV money or prize money, it's because of the investers they have. i said at the end of my post that i do think money is an issue but it's not the TV money. there's no way that we are so far behind 4th because Arsenal got an extra 15-20 mill in TV money, it's because of the money they have to start with. unless you want to find some legal way of stopping big money foreign investers coming in (which the FA and the Prem don't have the powers to do as they are businesses in their own right) then it won't change and this TV money is essential for the smaller clubs in the PL to even try to survive! we're lucky in that we have a reasonably well off owner but if we were a club like Norwich then we couldn't even dream of competing without the TV money that is made available.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 14, 2014 16:34:20 GMT
You are correct mick to say there has been movement at the top, but the gap between Southampton in 8th, and Arsenal in 4th, was 23 points, and in the case of Stoke 29 points. Yes there can be the odd surprise at the top, but the message for me is clear, there are two leagues and the points gap is huge. Whatever the cause of the gap in financial terms, it needs to be looked at. Remember also mick the armchair football fan, and supporters of the top clubs, are not especially bothered about a game between Stoke and Southampton, or Aston Villa against W.B.A., other than it fills the time on a Sunday afternoon, no I think the gap has never been bigger and we have an elite group of clubs. but as i said, Liverpool were nearly 30 points behind the leaders last year but have closed the gap massively without spending tens of millions since last year.Southampton were 14th last year and came 8th improving by 15 points without even playing two thirds of their transfers regularly....they haven't done that through TV money....the teams at the top aren't there because of the TV money or prize money, it's because of the investers they have. i said at the end of my post that i do think money is an issue but it's not the TV money. there's no way that we are so far behind 4th because Arsenal got an extra 15-20 mill in TV money, it's because of the money they have to start with. unless you want to find some legal way of stopping big money foreign investers coming in (which the FA and the Prem don't have the powers to do as they are businesses in their own right) then it won't change and this TV money is essential for the smaller clubs in the PL to even try to survive! we're lucky in that we have a reasonably well off owner but if we were a club like Norwich then we couldn't even dream of competing without the TV money that is made available. Mick is right. Whatever the wrongs about the Premier League (and there are many) the TV money is not the cause of the inequalities - in fact the league would be far more top heavy (money wise) than it is without the TV money. We are now a genuine mid table club both in points, placing and TV money. And the £75 million TV money is all that enables us to compete. Our TOTAL income this season including TV money will be in the region of £90 million - without the TV money it would be £15 million ish! But some of the teams at the top would still have income over £100 million if the TV money wasn't there. The various Financial Fair Play schemes are limiting the amount of losses that can be made and the amount of "creative" income in terms of sponsorship, for example. But the fact is that, over the years, the biggest clubs have got so big on a world wide basis that their income from merchandising, sponsorship and gate money is out of all proportion to what a club like ourselves and Norwich can raise - and that is before their owners build them their massive stadia, their state of the art training complexes and (in the case of Citeh) several smaller stadia for Academy games, Women's Super League etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by hammered on May 14, 2014 17:29:04 GMT
On the face of it you’d have to reason that Sky/BT know what games attract the biggest audience and I guess there’s some traditional fixtures – particularly London/North West derbies or meetings than turn up controversial/unexpected results, that are in the diary regardless of style, form or performance.
Pretty much every Man Utd/Liverpool/City game somehow makes its way onto the screen regardless of how they perform and I guess there’s an element of what the fixture schedule throws up each week to consider also.
Stoke I doubt have the TV following of a lot of Clubs and on the face of it until recently weren’t much entertainment for the neutral either. Having said that West Ham are hardly the bench mark for edge of the seat stuff themselves and it’s a mystery to me why we’re on so much also – in fact I wish we weren’t given our record in live games. Interestingly Palace got more live exposure than Stoke.
So far as the additional TV revenue this season – it’s got ludicrous just how many clubs are now firmly entrenched into needing this just to stay afloat let alone competitive. Stoke may well have an extra £30m but so does everyone else – most of which will get absorbed into new player contracts, fees and costs or FFP restrictions will hamper its use anyway.
It’s also worth considering that these payouts don’t take into account the running costs of location – (bigger clubs in major cities costing more to run etc..) so taking the spread of £63m (Cardiff) to £97m (Liverpool) – you’d have to guess Liverpool cost more than the difference to run.
It’s the commercial marketplace where the big club’s have the financial brand advantage and where the bottom 12 needs to improve. Man U’s revenue from it’s “Global” branding dwarfs the TV money and no surprise we have a proliferation of Asian/American owners anxious to take advantage of the potential of the PL brand in these markets. This is where IMO most legitimate financial growth within FFP will come from.
The other route is to get a sugar daddy, spend money you’re not allowed to, get good, win some stuff, fill/expand your stadium, pay your fine and put the prices up.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 19:48:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on May 14, 2014 22:59:47 GMT
76m from TV
Last year gate receipts 8m, sponsorship and ads 6m, conferencing and hospitality 3m, retail 3m
Assuming they are fairly constant that takes our turnover to 96m, and I reckon wages of 60m will be about the same as we loaned out and got rid of a few (didn't have a 25 man squad).
Pay off some debt? War chest AND pay down a bit of debt? Or splurge the lot and go for 7th next season. Tricky one for Mr Coates...
|
|