|
Post by junior1 on Feb 1, 2011 8:35:00 GMT
Could be better!! How will they meet the uefa guidelines...
They have lost over 550mill since roman arrived... Ouchy!
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 1, 2011 9:22:51 GMT
Chelsea and Man City are turning the Premier League into a farce. How they can justify that level of spending is beyond me.
Still until UEFA decide to clamp down on it, it will only get worse - and it won't be long before a really big club goes out of business.
|
|
|
Post by junior1 on Feb 1, 2011 11:04:10 GMT
That does not include yesterdays deals!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2011 11:30:57 GMT
Its about time something was done I agree.
Until UEFA acts we can all do our bit by not subscribing to SKY...
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Feb 1, 2011 11:36:24 GMT
Its about time something was done I agree. Until UEFA acts we can all do our bit by not subscribing to SKY... Our club gets money from the Sky deal so not a wise idea
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2011 12:03:44 GMT
its surely a small percentage of our clubs income though and the overall effect of SKY on the game including our club is negative.
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Feb 1, 2011 12:24:26 GMT
its surely a small percentage of our clubs income though and the overall effect of SKY on the game including our club is negative. Is it? What about the ripple effect of fans being priced out of premiership football and preferring lower league football these days? Years ago when the prem was formed they said lower league clubs would suffer with lower gates and less TV revenue. But we're seeing the exact opposite, our gates have never been better
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2011 12:31:44 GMT
But surely our gates could be better still if the kids in Oxford supported their local team instead of watching Premier League clubs on TV
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 1, 2011 13:08:18 GMT
But surely our gates could be better still if the kids in Oxford supported their local team instead of watching Premier League clubs on TV Ah, but because it is written into the agreement with sky that no prem matches can be broadcast at 3:00pm the kids can watch their adopted prem team around OUFC games. That clause was added precisely for the purpose of avoiding fans being drawn away from lower league games by prem footy on TV.
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Feb 1, 2011 13:20:22 GMT
But surely our gates could be better still if the kids in Oxford supported their local team instead of watching Premier League clubs on TV Ah, but because it is written into the agreement with sky that no prem matches can be broadcast at 3:00pm the kids can watch their adopted prem team around OUFC games. That clause was added precisely for the purpose of avoiding fans being drawn away from lower league games by prem footy on TV. Really ? I thought the reason for that is so the BBC could show an exclusive highlights show?
|
|
|
Post by junior1 on Feb 1, 2011 13:32:14 GMT
Sky show highlights before motd anyhow
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Feb 1, 2011 13:47:50 GMT
I heard on the radio that Chelsea made a cash profit in the last financial year for the first time under Roman Abramovich. Much to my surprise.
City are the team that will have the biggest problem complying as the regulations stand.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2011 13:57:40 GMT
Ah, but because it is written into the agreement with sky that no prem matches can be broadcast at 3:00pm the kids can watch their adopted prem team around OUFC games. That clause was added precisely for the purpose of avoiding fans being drawn away from lower league games by prem footy on TV. Yeah but if you follow your team on TV, why bother forking out £15 to watch a comparatively poor standard of football on a saturday?
|
|
|
Post by junior1 on Feb 1, 2011 14:09:06 GMT
Even when you add in £73 million from yesterday Gary
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 1, 2011 14:31:45 GMT
Ah, but because it is written into the agreement with sky that no prem matches can be broadcast at 3:00pm the kids can watch their adopted prem team around OUFC games. That clause was added precisely for the purpose of avoiding fans being drawn away from lower league games by prem footy on TV. Yeah but if you follow your team on TV, why bother forking out £15 to watch a comparatively poor standard of football on a saturday? Because you also support ypur hometown club? If you only support a prem team what would you be doing buying tickets for a lower league match anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2011 14:51:59 GMT
My point is that I think SKY's marketing of the Premier League and extensive coverage of it leads to more kids choosing Premier League clubs instead of their local ones.
In fact not just kids...
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Feb 1, 2011 15:37:10 GMT
My point is that I think SKY's marketing of the Premier League and extensive coverage of it leads to more kids choosing Premier League clubs instead of their local ones. In fact not just kids... I disagree, when I was young kids still supported Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal etc it's a fact of life. The Premier league may not have helped but to blame them completely is just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 1, 2011 15:45:03 GMT
I heard on the radio that Chelsea made a cash profit in the last financial year for the first time under Roman Abramovich. Much to my surprise. City are the team that will have the biggest problem complying as the regulations stand. Chelsea had been fairly quiet on the transfer front (for them), until yesterday when they splash out £73 million on only two players.
|
|
|
Post by alessandro on Feb 1, 2011 16:50:30 GMT
My point is that I think SKY's marketing of the Premier League and extensive coverage of it leads to more kids choosing Premier League clubs instead of their local ones. In fact not just kids... Our crowds are up since Sky came into football. So are most football clubs.
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Feb 1, 2011 17:11:31 GMT
My point is that I think SKY's marketing of the Premier League and extensive coverage of it leads to more kids choosing Premier League clubs instead of their local ones. In fact not just kids... Our crowds are up since Sky came into football. So are most football clubs. Doesn't mean the 2 are linked though...
|
|
|
Post by Best Mate on Feb 1, 2011 17:52:09 GMT
I do, the juggernaut that is Sky TV has raised the profile of football in this country to another level.
There are a lot of negatives to this - I.e. the cost to watch football is verging on scandalous.
However, it has opened a lot of other avenues (made footballers more of a pin up then pop stars) etc and I think as a result - this is why attendances are up.
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Feb 1, 2011 17:58:42 GMT
Better stadiums?, lower hooliganism? These aren't big factors then? It's not just down to Sky, no matter how much Sky would like you to believe it. Television coverage was shocking in the 80s, obviously far better now, but I don't think you can put it all down to that.
|
|
|
Post by Best Mate on Feb 1, 2011 18:39:24 GMT
Both very good reasons too.
|
|
|
Post by alessandro on Feb 1, 2011 20:52:59 GMT
I think Sky are to some extent irrelevant.
More money from tv should mean cheaper prices. Its the club to blame for the spiralling wages and IFA.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Feb 2, 2011 13:51:23 GMT
Even when you add in £73 million from yesterday Gary City's problem is that they have relatively small amounts of commercial money coming into them. Whether through sponsorship deals or things like corporate entertainment. They are spending well above their turnover. I don't have the figures to hand but they are team that will struggle the most. Chelsea will have problems but they aren't as bad as City. They have average players on monster wages. Chelsea have also cut their wage bill massively recently getting rid of people like Ballack and Carvalho. They are no longer the payers they once were - obviously Torres aside.
|
|