|
Post by tonyw on Aug 4, 2017 17:42:31 GMT
I don't see the problem with Sky and the money they pump into the game. Before they came along football was dying on its feet,matches were being played in half empty,old,run down and frankly dangerous stadiums . Does anyone think,that without Sky Arsenal would be playing at the Emirates,Leicester at the King Power and Spurs spending a Billion on a new stadium ? Does anyone think that Ronaldo,Coutinho,Sanchez and YaYa etc would have played in England without the dosh ? You might say "good it will give English players a chance" Well going back to the OP, how many of Kane,Ali,Rose etc would be playing abroad if due to no Sky money they were on 10k a week instead of 100k in Italy ? Back in the 80s/90s Italy had all the money,so that's where the best (and distinctly average) went,David Platt,Trevor Francis and Butch Wilkins,decent enough players,but hardly superstars all became rich due to bags full of Lira. It also filters down,with people buying clubs with the hope of owning a team that gets to the PL,paying over the top for lower league players. If their was no Sky money does anyone think we would have got the money we did for Roofe an O'Dowda ? Money that was vital in guaranteeing the survival of OUFC. Everyone looks back with rose tinted specs,but I'm old enough to remember programmes at Oxford being made of normal paper because we couldn't afford the glossy stuff.That's what it was like before money from Sky was floating around. How many clubs would go to the wall without Sky ? How many players would play lower league football for £400 P.W. When brickies earn double that ? Do you want to go back to watching the likes of Archie White,John Doyle and Colin Duncan ? (no offence lads) money makes the world go round,Sky gives football that money. You mean like the three years when we played in the first division? No chance (barring getting bought up by a Russian oligarch) those days are coming back any time soon. Thanks to Sky's money, the gap in terms of revenue between the haves and the have nots in English football has grown by several orders of magnitude (and we're a have not for the foreseeable future) Also, since the advent of Sky in 1992, 55 clubs in the top five divisions have gone into administration. There's a few repeat offenders in there, but still - 55! And of course Darlington, Hereford, Halifax, Rushden & Diamonds, Telford, Scarborough & Chester City all went to the wall (I may be forgetting others). Sky's money didn't save any of them.....in fact you can trace the demise of several of them as being down to bad decisions made chasing Sky's riches. Not saying that clubs didn't go bust before the Premier League came into being - of course they did. But I see no evidence whatsoever that Sky's money has meant less clubs going to the wall. No argument that the average standard of player is better, and the stadiums are better, due to the influx of Sky cash. But the cost has been vast income inequality across the game.....and a lot of more traditional fans don't like that trade.
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Aug 5, 2017 7:19:35 GMT
I don't see the problem with Sky and the money they pump into the game. Before they came along football was dying on its feet,matches were being played in half empty,old,run down and frankly dangerous stadiums . Does anyone think,that without Sky Arsenal would be playing at the Emirates,Leicester at the King Power and Spurs spending a Billion on a new stadium ? Does anyone think that Ronaldo,Coutinho,Sanchez and YaYa etc would have played in England without the dosh ? You might say "good it will give English players a chance" Well going back to the OP, how many of Kane,Ali,Rose etc would be playing abroad if due to no Sky money they were on 10k a week instead of 100k in Italy ? Back in the 80s/90s Italy had all the money,so that's where the best (and distinctly average) went,David Platt,Trevor Francis and Butch Wilkins,decent enough players,but hardly superstars all became rich due to bags full of Lira. It also filters down,with people buying clubs with the hope of owning a team that gets to the PL,paying over the top for lower league players. If their was no Sky money does anyone think we would have got the money we did for Roofe an O'Dowda ? Money that was vital in guaranteeing the survival of OUFC. Everyone looks back with rose tinted specs,but I'm old enough to remember programmes at Oxford being made of normal paper because we couldn't afford the glossy stuff.That's what it was like before money from Sky was floating around. How many clubs would go to the wall without Sky ? How many players would play lower league football for £400 P.W. When brickies earn double that ? Do you want to go back to watching the likes of Archie White,John Doyle and Colin Duncan ? (no offence lads) money makes the world go round,Sky gives football that money. You mean like the three years when we played in the first division? No chance (barring getting bought up by a Russian oligarch) those days are coming back any time soon. Thanks to Sky's money, the gap in terms of revenue between the haves and the have nots in English football has grown by several orders of magnitude (and we're a have not for the foreseeable future) Also, since the advent of Sky in 1992, 55 clubs in the top five divisions have gone into administration. There's a few repeat offenders in there, but still - 55! And of course Darlington, Hereford, Halifax, Rushden & Diamonds, Telford, Scarborough & Chester City all went to the wall (I may be forgetting others). Sky's money didn't save any of them.....in fact you can trace the demise of several of them as being down to bad decisions made chasing Sky's riches. Not saying that clubs didn't go bust before the Premier League came into being - of course they did. But I see no evidence whatsoever that Sky's money has meant less clubs going to the wall. No argument that the average standard of player is better, and the stadiums are better, due to the influx of Sky cash. But the cost has been vast income inequality across the game.....and a lot of more traditional fans don't like that trade. Sorry I don't agree. IMO the inequality has always been there and was worse before Sky.Man Utd broke the world record transfer fee for Denis Law 50 odd years ago.Oxford made the top flight with bargain basement buys,even after winning the Milk cup we couldn't afford to buy good enough players or pay their wages,which ultimately meant we went down. After relegation it went from bad to worse. Burnley a town with a population half that of Oxford,got relegated from the PL,but due to Sky money were able to keep their best players,enabling them to compete with the Leeds,Sheff Weds and Wolves of this world and bounce straight back. Pre Sky the likes of Keane,Heaton,Trippier and Ings wouldn't have been at a club like Burnley never mind stay after relegation. Do you really think Jermain Defoe would have gone to Bournemouth pre Sky ? Shakiri to Stoke ? Or Leicester pay £25 mill for a player from Manchester City ? The inequality in football has always been there,Man Uniteds income last season was £500 million,Burnleys was £100 million,so X 5. I bet in the late sixties Man Uniteds income was twenty times that of Burnley.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Aug 5, 2017 13:32:52 GMT
Do you really think Jermain Defoe would have gone to Bournemouth pre Sky ? Shakiri to Stoke ? Or Leicester pay £25 mill for a player from Manchester City ? The inequality in football has always been there,Man Uniteds income last season was £500 million,Burnleys was £100 million,so X 5. I bet in the late sixties Man Uniteds income was twenty times that of Burnley. And Oxford's income was probably less than 5 million, so more than x 100. Same is true for pretty much every club in the bottom two divisions. Do you think that was the case in the late sixties? You're looking at the wrong 'have nots'. If you're in the Premiership like Burnley or Bournemouth then, yeah, you're doing great thanks to the Sky deal. If you're stuck in the lower leagues, not so much, you're justing begging for scraps.
|
|
|
Post by amershamdave on Aug 5, 2017 20:29:55 GMT
Pete Winkleman's money helped build MK stadium. That other bloke who put his lot into Reading. That Russian geezer who has bankrolled Chelsea. In 1979, Trevor Francis was sold for £1,000,000 million. Quite a few years before SKY. Ridiculous transfer fees are here, because football has got greedier and greedier. SKY doesn't help, of course (well, it does help the already-rich clubs). When Spurs became a Limited company all those years ago, I thought that would be the start of the money men destroying the good name of football. In the 80's, the SCUM newspaper mentioned something about hooligans would kill our game. Nah, the money men are making our beloved game look pathetic, as far as transfer fees and agent's commission fees are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Aug 10, 2017 17:21:02 GMT
On a related note, there was a report on the BBC today - www.bbc.com/sport/football/40717176 - that contained the fairly extraordinary nugget that in 2016, 16 out of 24 Championship clubs spent more than 100% of their turnover on staff costs. So two thirds of Championship clubs are putting their long term future at risk chasing Premier League riches. Yet another symptom of how Sky and the Premier League is enriching the few at the risk of the rest.
|
|