The TV Money: What Do You Think It Means?

[billycopper]

FFP is poorly written with too many loopholes. Clubs will (already have) found ways to work around it. I think the advantage to the Prem as a whole will be pretty big. Doesn't mean "we'll" win everything but it's going to have an impact -- we already have teams finishing in Europa spots (or maybe even outside of them) who spend more than CL teams who win their leagues. Everton spends more than a lot of CL teams and we're "broke."

I am not sure what it going on here. We still pay wages and operating costs so the overall figure isn't the one to use. It's basically 20m extra (assuming we retain 7th-ish finishes). So if we didn't increase our wages at all and had a 0 net spend we could maybe do what you want to do in three years. Of course we'll have Fellaini money too but things will kick right off (and we'd almost certainly finish lower) if they don't invest most of that back into the squad.

You could still do it but it would take a few years and we would slip from 8-10th in spend to bottom half of the table meaning our manager (whomever he is) has to work even more miracles. If we start slipping then we get less money so it might take longer to pay off.

City got £60m for winning the league last year but the figure available next year would be about £100m and they're expecting foreign rights to rise by around 50% as well. According to what I've read and heard it's mammoth sums. We'd be under no pressure to sell Fellaini but, if he asked for a move, this summer would probably be the best time for it because prices are likely to be ridiculous. I think that Arsenal and Spurs are too sensibly run to go on a £70m transfer spree. Maybe the RS and the likes of Sunderland might go a bit bad but they've shown before that spending big doesn't necessarily bring success. If the figures that I've discussed are anywhere near then £25m is a healthy transfer budget to pick up three or four players of Fer's quality.

 

[billycopper]

Finishing a couple of places lower under the new deal would also cost us about £2m per place. So finishing 10th instead of 7th would see us losing £6m per year from the extra £20m.

"A paper circulated to the clubs at the Premier League shareholders meeting last month, details of which have been seen by Goal.com, estimated that sales from the UK rights were £3.291 billion, an increase of 57 per cent from the current figure of £2.102 bn.

This will be topped up by revenues from the overseas broadcasters, with the total package worth an incredible £5.213 bn, an increase of 46 per cent from the current £3.562 bn.

Game-by-game, this means the Premier League will receive £6.5m for 90 minutes of play".

Mind-boggling.

 

[evilwebby]

Moyes main strength is that he has a good eye for upcoming talent.

That's essentially how he's built his teams, by buying overlooked, little-known, and lower league players.

His second strength is that he has a very strong work ethic, and imposes this onto his players. His teams are usually pretty well organised and hard working.


Unfortunately his main weakness is that, once he has these players, he is mostly unable to make the most of them because he is primarily a defensively-minded person. Attacking players always regress under Moyes' stewardship, whereas defensive players do well. Tactically he is no better than average.

Added to this is that he always over-relies on his favourite workhorses, and deeply mistrusts youth, and his shortfallings are cruelly exposed.

 

[sheeds]

From what I've read this is a game-changing amount of money. It's something like a 60% increase in TV revenue and it will wipe out the debts of all but the biggest clubs. It's supposed to be such a huge windfall that a club would need to be spectacularly badly run to still be in financial trouble afterwards.

The problem with the summer transfer window is that everyone will know that the Premier League is awash with money and asking prices will once again peak. It would be better to try and pick players off from clubs who are financially struggling abroad, such as Negredo than to splurge. If we invested in infrastructure we could guarantee that we'd have at least £5m to spend each year and we could wait until prices stabilised again before going on a buying spree.

I could be wrong but isn't it like the housing boom , everyone's house price went up so unless you are emigrating or downsizing it wasn't really worth anything ? Deal after deal the TV money increased and how have we done ? If the tv deal was only for us then yeah great but everyone gets it , the 'permanent' premier league clubs will all benefit and as a league we'll probably step up ahead of Spain again or whatever because we'll pay the wages .

For me those owning clubs will find any sale could increase their return , players and agents will earn but for any club to rise above the rest you'd think they'd have to be an arsenal or a spurs . Namely well run with a business plan, I'm not holding out too much hope unfortunately

 

[Essex Blue]

FFP is poorly written with too many loopholes. Clubs will (already have) found ways to work around it. I think the advantage to the Prem as a whole will be pretty big. Doesn't mean "we'll" win everything but it's going to have an impact -- we already have teams finishing in Europa spots (or maybe even outside of them) who spend more than CL teams who win their leagues. Everton spends more than a lot of CL teams and we're "broke."

I'm not naive enough to think that there won't be ways of getting round it, but I don't think it's a load of hot air, either. People have spent time creating it for a reason, and it was voted in by the majority of Premier League chairmen for a reason.

It's not as cut and dry as 'You can only spend your revenue', it's 'Your outgoings on wages are not allowed to exceed a certain amount unless you want to receive a penalty'. Fabricating how much you are spending on wages is a lot more difficult than arranging an inflated sponsorship deal that increases revenue that can then be spent.

It will have an effect on Premier League football, IMO.

 

[sheeds]

Without getting into a FFP debate , dave whelan is considered to be a vocal and determined supporter of the proposed rules. The same dave whelan whose Wigan RL side were famous for repeatedly breaking the salary cap rules. I'm not saying it won't work that just strikes me as a wee big telling

 

[Essex Blue]

Without getting into a FFP debate , dave whelan is considered to be a vocal and determined supporter of the proposed rules. The same dave whelan whose Wigan RL side were famous for repeatedly breaking the salary cap rules. I'm not saying it won't work that just strokes me as a wee big telling

Which boils down to the implementation of the rules. If someone breaks the rules put isn't punished appropriately, then nobody will pay the slightest bit of notice to the rules.

 

[billycopper]

I could be wrong but isn't it like the housing boom , everyone's house price went up so unless you are emigrating or downsizing it wasn't really worth anything ? Deal after deal the TV money increased and how have we done ? If the tv deal was only for us then yeah great but everyone gets it , the 'permanent' premier league clubs will all benefit and as a league we'll probably step up ahead of Spain again or whatever because we'll pay the wages .

For me those owning clubs will find any sale could increase their return , players and agents will earn but for any club to rise above the rest you'd think they'd have to be an arsenal or a spurs . Namely well run with a business plan, I'm not holding out too much hope unfortunately

I think in the past that tv deals have bought us some breathing space with the banks and given us enough of a transfer kitty to keep Moyes happy. Partly because of BT buying ESPN and deciding to compete with Sky this level of increase is unprecedented though and gives us a chance to get our house in order.

The money that we're currently paying in interest, loan facility fees and rent takes a huge chunk of our revenue and doesn't get us anywhere. In fact I would be very surprised if the bank didn't demand at least partial repayment knowing that we're due a windfall, so we won't have the option of choosing whether to spend it on signings or not.

Maybe you'll find that the likes of Randy Lerner will take the opportunity to recoup his losses and sell up? There are lots of permutations to how it could pan out. My instinct is to invest in infrastructure and pay down debt so that we can be stable over a number of years rather than get involved in a scramble. Better players will always choose more glamourous clubs anyway, so we'd have to either pay even further over the odds to attract them to us or accept inferior quality.

 

[billycopper]

I'm not naive enough to think that there won't be ways of getting round it, but I don't think it's a load of hot air, either. People have spent time creating it for a reason, and it was voted in by the majority of Premier League chairmen for a reason.

It's not as cut and dry as 'You can only spend your revenue', it's 'Your outgoings on wages are not allowed to exceed a certain amount unless you want to receive a penalty'. Fabricating how much you are spending on wages is a lot more difficult than arranging an inflated sponsorship deal that increases revenue that can then be spent.

It will have an effect on Premier League football, IMO.

They'll find ways round it. FIFA reckon they're already on to clubs signing away naming rights for ridiculous sums. I can imagine that we'll play by the rules and be at a disadvantage to the clubs ahead of us who play dirty.

 

[Ihaters]

I could be wrong but isn't it like the housing boom , everyone's house price went up so unless you are emigrating or downsizing it wasn't really worth anything ? Deal after deal the TV money increased and how have we done ? If the tv deal was only for us then yeah great but everyone gets it , the 'permanent' premier league clubs will all benefit and as a league we'll probably step up ahead of Spain again or whatever because we'll pay the wages .

For me those owning clubs will find any sale could increase their return , players and agents will earn but for any club to rise above the rest you'd think they'd have to be an arsenal or a spurs . Namely well run with a business plan, I'm not holding out too much hope unfortunately

Yeah but if you sold your house in England and bought one in a country with cheap house, you'll get a massive house upgrade for the same price.
Nothing to stop us selling a player for silly money here (if someone wants him) and then going abroad where prices may well still be fairly reasonable.
Most importantly though we should be able to clear our debt over the course of a couple of years and still get some players without the needs to sell.
Sadly for me this is the best time to have someone like Moyes who can hold us together whilst those around go nuts with their wedge, keep us competitive and earning the big pay outs and then buy quality for reasonable funds.
This would mean in a few years time we'll be minted and Moyes could have a real transfer window.

 

[EvertruvianMan]

The problem with increases in TV money for us is that everyone else gets them as well. So competing to keep the players we have or attracting others is Status Quo. We Will Not Be Rocking All Over The World (Or Europe).

 

[Essex Blue]

They'll find ways round it. FIFA reckon they're already on to clubs signing away naming rights for ridiculous sums. I can imagine that we'll play by the rules and be at a disadvantage to the clubs ahead of us who play dirty.

You wouldn't have to bother 'getting round it' if the penalties for breaking the rules are limp or non-existent.

It won't be easy to fabricate the amount of wages paid, IMO.

 

[Essex Blue]

Sadly for me this is the best time to have someone like Moyes who can hold us together whilst those around go nuts with their wedge, keep us competitive and earning the big pay outs and then buy quality for reasonable funds.

I agree with this, unfortunately.

Now is not the time to be getting rid of Moyes (a mingebag Scot who tends to spend his money very well), in favour of some fly-by-night beaut who really doesn't care if his latest 5million pound signing turns out to be a flop.

 

[sheeds]

You wouldn't have to bother 'getting round it' if the penalties for breaking the rules are limp or non-existent.

It won't be easy to fabricate the amount of wages paid, IMO.

Issues with hmrc and public companies though I'd suspect

Yeah but if you sold your house in England and bought one in a country with cheap house, you'll get a massive house upgrade for the same price.
Nothing to stop us selling a player for silly money here (if someone wants him) and then going abroad where prices may well still be fairly reasonable.
Most importantly though we should be able to clear our debt over the course of a couple of years and still get some players without the needs to sell.
Sadly for me this is the best time to have someone like Moyes who can hold us together whilst those around go nuts with their wedge, keep us competitive and earning the big pay outs and then buy quality for reasonable funds.
This would mean in a few years time we'll be minted and Moyes could have a real transfer window.

I'll not disagree with the principle but wages I'm not convinced the margins will be as great as we'd hope also if English clubs are after the same players the price will certainly rise.