"Makes a lot more sense to me than trying to nationalise one of the biggest sports media deals on the planet and destroy value because you simply don't get it and are very jealous of those with access to a share of the cash."
Personal jealousy? I've heard it all now.
Alex Fynn's books in the early 90s taught me the importance of a pyramid structure in football with the national team at the top of it, written while Richard Scudamore was still flogging advertising space for Yellow Pages. In turn Richard Murray has consistently argued for a fairer distribution of TV money from the moment he arrived at the FAPL table as is amply documented by Tom Bower in his "Broken Dreams" book.
One of these days you might actually look back over your own posts and spot the frequent contradictions. Yes, there might be 12 clubs with parachute payments. But why is that in any way good? When are you going to tell us what is sensible about the fact that we got 3m in TV money while teams in the same league got 16m and the bottom team in the FAPL got 60m. Do explain to me, and a whole load of other people, what I "don't get" about that. And while you are at it, give me one good reason to believe that Richard Scudamore would not have achieved exactly the same sales results if his employer had been the FA rather than a separate entity called the FAPL (assuming only that his salary and bonus payments would have been the same, which is all that motivates him).
I think you have just underlined my point - no one was going to listen to Murray before 1998 because we weren't at the top table. So CAFC needs to get promoted before Duchatelet can approach like minded clubs about changing anything. I am not sure I made my point clear enough on parachute payments... A premier league 2 is evolving as more cubs relegated from the EPL fail to secure promotion straight away. With parachute payments over four years and not two it is inevitable that the numbers creep up. However some clubs use the time and money better than others. Not sure I stated whether parachute payments were good or bad - that was your inference perhaps? One would have to do quite an in depth study to evaluate the options. Thing is they very nearly wrecked our club 7 years ago as all that tension was leveraged by Pardew and he spent the lot. One thing I think we can agree on is that the bigger the TV monies the more that appears to be paid out to players and agents. Re the TV deal and it's continual evolution and growth - your suggesting that the FA could have achieved anything like what we have seen doesn't really stack up when one looks at the costs and delays at Wembley compared to say Arsenal, Old Trafford or Twickenham? Or the French or Welsh equivalents and did we need a national stadium? And surely the FA have to take responsibility for the continuous below par performance of the national team? Once again the Premier league deal is one of the top three global sports media deals and it didn't happen by accident! I can't comment more on that as I'm no expert in the field of media rights but your approach appears to be old labour - if it's wealthy and shiny then tax it or nationalise it and put a load of politicians in charge - that worked well didn't it?
OK I give up. it is impossible to debate with you because you don't seem able to properly comprehend what people are saying in reply to you.
To take one point, just as an example. In Tom Bower's book, he discusses Richard Murray's views on the TV money because at that time we are in the FAPL. otherwise RM would not have warranted a mention. you obviously haven't read the book.
Bizarre response given i've just agreed with you on that point... but you can't see it! It's a great game by the way. Not read the book but it's a statement of the bleeding obvious! If you're in League 1 or bottom of championship you have no voice so focus on getting promoted and then people might listen - Simples
Comments
Personal jealousy? I've heard it all now.
Alex Fynn's books in the early 90s taught me the importance of a pyramid structure in football with the national team at the top of it, written while Richard Scudamore was still flogging advertising space for Yellow Pages. In turn Richard Murray has consistently argued for a fairer distribution of TV money from the moment he arrived at the FAPL table as is amply documented by Tom Bower in his "Broken Dreams" book.
One of these days you might actually look back over your own posts and spot the frequent contradictions. Yes, there might be 12 clubs with parachute payments. But why is that in any way good? When are you going to tell us what is sensible about the fact that we got 3m in TV money while teams in the same league got 16m and the bottom team in the FAPL got 60m. Do explain to me, and a whole load of other people, what I "don't get" about that. And while you are at it, give me one good reason to believe that Richard Scudamore would not have achieved exactly the same sales results if his employer had been the FA rather than a separate entity called the FAPL (assuming only that his salary and bonus payments would have been the same, which is all that motivates him).
I am not sure I made my point clear enough on parachute payments... A premier league 2 is evolving as more cubs relegated from the EPL fail to secure promotion straight away. With parachute payments over four years and not two it is inevitable that the numbers creep up. However some clubs use the time and money better than others.
Not sure I stated whether parachute payments were good or bad - that was your inference perhaps? One would have to do quite an in depth study to evaluate the options. Thing is they very nearly wrecked our club 7 years ago as all that tension was leveraged by Pardew and he spent the lot.
One thing I think we can agree on is that the bigger the TV monies the more that appears to be paid out to players and agents.
Re the TV deal and it's continual evolution and growth - your suggesting that the FA could have achieved anything like what we have seen doesn't really stack up when one looks at the costs and delays at Wembley compared to say Arsenal, Old Trafford or Twickenham? Or the French or Welsh equivalents and did we need a national stadium? And surely the FA have to take responsibility for the continuous below par performance of the national team? Once again the Premier league deal is one of the top three global sports media deals and it didn't happen by accident! I can't comment more on that as I'm no expert in the field of media rights but your approach appears to be old labour - if it's wealthy and shiny then tax it or nationalise it and put a load of politicians in charge - that worked well didn't it?
OK I give up. it is impossible to debate with you because you don't seem able to properly comprehend what people are saying in reply to you.
To take one point, just as an example. In Tom Bower's book, he discusses Richard Murray's views on the TV money because at that time we are in the FAPL. otherwise RM would not have warranted a mention. you obviously haven't read the book.
Oh well, back to the World Cup.