Need another reason to hate Liverpool?

[ImperialWhite]

Voila!

Liverpool threaten breakaway from Premier League's TV rights deal

The deal that shares television's billions equally between Premier League clubs is facing its biggest threat to date after Liverpool announced they would lead a challenge for overseas TV rights to be sold on a club-by-club basis.

Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, has insisted the break-up of the established broadcasting deal, worth £3.2bn in total to all Premier League clubs for 2010‑13, is "a debate that has to happen", with the Anfield club in favour of the Spanish model that allows Barcelona and Real Madrid to negotiate individual contracts that dwarf their domestic and European rivals.

Since the Premier League's foundation in 1992 its success has been largely based on the principle of collective selling, where each club no matter how lowly can expect a fixed share of TV deals with "merit" awards for finishing positions as an add‑on. Changing this model would risk revolt from the smaller clubs who stand to lose most, and thus threatens the league's very structure.

At present, the Premier League sells domestic and overseas broadcasting rights collectively and more than doubled international revenue in its last negotiations, from £625m for 2007‑10 to £1.4bn for 2010‑13. With the Premier League shown in 212 countries and having 98 broadcast partners around the world, it is expected the next deal will show a similar increase, with overseas rights potentially worth more than domestic for the first time.

Ayre believes the Premier League's four biggest global draws – Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal – deserve an increased share from 2013, with overseas broadcasting having a greater influence on the Anfield club's financial future than a new stadium. "Personally I think the game-changer is going out and recognising our brand globally," said the Liverpool managing director. "Maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain. There are so many things moving in that particular area.

"What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you're a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you're a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you're in Kuala Lumpur there isn't anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it's a very small number. Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal.

"So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others. At some point we definitely feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs."

It would require 14 of the Premier League's 20 members to vote in favour of a new commercial arrangement. Though Sir Alex Ferguson recently described the collective deal as "fair", albeit while insisting clubs deserved more from overseas rights, and La Liga's system has attracted widespread criticism, Ayre believes the status quo jeopardises the financial might of the Premier League.

"If Real Madrid or Barcelona or other big European clubs have the opportunity to truly realise their international media value potential, where does that leave Liverpool and Manchester United? We'll just share ours because we'll all be nice to each other? The whole phenomenon of the Premier League could be threatened. If they just get bigger and bigger and they generate more and more, then all the players will start drifting that way and will the Premier League bubble burst because we are sticking to this equal-sharing model? It's a real debate that has to happen."

Liverpool insist their radical proposals are limited to overseas broadcasting, although success on that front could set a precedent domestically in the long term, and the club plans to raise the issue at the next Premier League meeting. Ayre's frank admission comes almost one year on from Fenway Sports Group acquiring the club from Tom Hicks and George Gillett in the high court and, along with broadcasting revenue, another major financial decision to be resolved by the American owners remains whether to construct a new stadium or redevelop their current home, Anfield.

Liverpool's managing director insists the club are pursuing "a parallel course" on both options, with planning regulations complicating the redevelopment of Anfield and the financial benefits of a new-build uncertain, although Ayre admits the latter option is only viable with a naming rights deal. "We have been in discussions here and in other parts of the world with a small group of people that we have narrowed down that we are targeting for naming rights. That is an absolute catalyst to building a new stadium. The economics just don't stack up without it.

"When will the decision be made? It'll only be when we reach an answer with both. It's hard to put a time on it. If you put a deadline on the naming rights, then you start to marginalise the deal. We aren't desperate. We think we have an amazing proposition as one of the biggest clubs in the world. I don't recall any football club of this size with this international reach that's ever done a naming rights deal. It is quite unique in that sense. Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United haven't. Nobody in football has done this at this level. It's new ground and it will take what it takes."

Ayre, along with the former Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton, ex-chief executive Christian Purslow and Fenway Sports Group, remains the subject of a £1bn lawsuit filed by Hicks and Gillett over the events surrounding their departure last October. "It's an unwanted and unwelcome distraction. That's their prerogative but we remain extremely confident that we did the right thing," he said. The Liverpool MD offered his resignation to John W Henry following FSG's victory in the high court, and admits the five-times European champions could have entered administration had Hicks and Gillett retained control.

"Certainly the bank had the power to call in the debt and at the time there wasn't anyone ready to take on that debt. So I guess the answer to that [would Liverpool have gone into administration] is yes. It's hypothetical but based on where we were and based on the circumstances at the time that was a very real threat. That was the case in the final hours. That was one of the other routes we could have gone down."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/11/liverpool-breakaway-tv-deal]
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/11/liverpool-breakaway-tv-deal[/url]

[FatFreddysCat]

Who needs anouther reason to hate them?

[FatFreddysCat]

Glad Finny's away gambling :033:

[jarv]

The pigs are at the trough! I wonder which one will eat the most. 080.gif

[TheDaddy]

The pigs are at the trough! I wonder which one will eat the most. 080.gif

Agree 100% Some of these clubs need to do a bit of research into their history and see how they were founded !

[FatFreddysCat]

They want a  deal comparable with the likes of Barca and Real Madrid,but aren't they more Valencia or Seville?

[White Noise]

I am amazed it has taken this long for one of the American owned/influenced clubs to float this and see how many others might jump on the bandwagon.

What will be interesting is to see how many of the 20 clubs can see themselves coming out ahead on a move like this.

MAF has consistently criticised the level of deal being done on the overseas rights and if he sees us as a top 10 calibre club now he may want to see if he can get a better cut for the club through individual negotiations.

[ImperialWhite]

I am amazed it has taken this long for one of the American owned/influenced clubs to float this and see how many others might jump on the bandwagon.

What will be interesting is to see how many of the 20 clubs can see themselves coming out ahead on a move like this.

MAF has consistently criticised the level of deal being done on the overseas rights and if he sees us as a top 10 calibre club now he may want to see if he can get a better cut for the club through individual negotiations.

In my view:

United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal would do much much better than currently.

City, Spurs, Villa, Everton and Newcastle might do a bit better, but probably not.

The rest (ourselves included) would do far far worse.

--> Which is worrying, because that's a 9:11 split, not too far away from the 14 votes required to pass it - you never know if a few of the smaller clubs might be persuaded,

[Mr_Moon]

They want a  deal comparable with the likes of Barca and Real Madrid,but aren't they more Valencia or Seville?

Liverpool are a huge club though, their games attract a hell of a lot of viewings in the far east.

[cebu]

I'm beginning to wonder if this is just a step along the path to some kind of European Superleague involving 10 - 12 of the biggest clubs.

Nah, they wouldn't do that, would they?   :hook:

[Burt]

Hmm we haven't heard the last of this.

The other "big" clubs will be watching with interest.

[RidgeRider]

hmmmm, not sure I could dislike Liverpool anymore than I do but this doesn't make me like them less. I don't blame their owners for wanting to maximize their revenues however without the other 19 teams in the PL, and for that matter all the clubs in the Championship on down, their brand has no real value under the current club structure in England. They need those clubs to exist and survive. Can't see how this would help the league that enables them to be global in their reach.

[JBH]

They want a  deal comparable with the likes of Barca and Real Madrid,but aren't they more Valencia or Seville?

Liverpool are a huge club though, their games attract a hell of a lot of viewings in the far east.

Prehaps they will do us all a favour and build their new stadium in Tokyoand then apply to play in the J  League  065.gif

[JBH]

I'm beginning to wonder if this is just a step along the path to some kind of European Superleague involving 10 - 12 of the biggest clubs.

Nah, they wouldn't do that, would they?   :hook:

It already exists, it's called the Champions League

[MJG]

Yanks, they just can't leave things alone abroad. :hook:

[Berserker]

I agree, we could end up a with a English Premier, Premier league, EPPL. It will just be the super rich clubs in one and then every body else. Trouble would be it would just get boring as the clubs in the top league would have to keep playing each other, unless that is they had less games in the EPPL to make time to play their International and cup matches!

[aussierod]

I dont think many clubs will agree to it, what he's suggesting would be instead of currently receiving 5% of the international tv rights, given their global reach and the amount of people wanting to watch them, compared to the very few who would rather watch a proper team in Fulham, Liverpool should receive perhaps 10%. Lets say Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and perhaps now Man City all want something similar, thats 50% of the pie gone already. Mid level and small clubs will be much much worse off. I can see why they are doing this, as if my brand was recognised internationally and others weren't then I'd wonder as to why I'm not entitled to more. Thankfuly I could never see 14 clubs that will never agree to a small piece of the pie and also the prospect of further decreases due to potential of also restructuring the domestic rights in a similar format.
To be honest, I think Liverpool are probably trying to reassess as to how they are going to get more income for their owners and without significant more investment they wont ever get in the Champs League so an easier alternate route would be international tv rights
Its all about trying to protect their position without doing anything for it. It appears they're worried the good times are over, as I cant see Fenway spending another £120mill on players who for the most part, wouldnt make the other top 4 sides

[AlFayedsChequebook]

Individual TV rights do not work. They may point to Spain, with Barcelona and Real making bucketloads, but the other teams are poor in comparison and have not made much of a dent in the champions league of late.

In Italy, individual rights has been a complete failure - the italian game is struggling, and I reckon that the Spanish game could go the same way if their greed continues.

THE REASON that the premier league makes so much money is exactly because it is marketed collectively, as a nice package. Individual rights make it messy and would probably put people off.

Liverpool's marketing manager is VERY short sighted here. A competitive league is more important than a rich one. Oh, and there already is an unfair bonus for big clubs, its called the champions league.

[King_Crud]

as I understand the Serie A is now getting rid of individual deals and is doing a group deal for all teams in Seria A & Serie B

[AlFayedsChequebook]

as I understand the Serie A is now getting rid of individual deals and is doing a group deal for all teams in Seria A & Serie B

Exactly, they recognised that the best league structure was the premier league, which came from a position of weakness at the start of the 90's to be (probably) the strongest league in Europe. Italy went in the direct opposite direction as they failed to understand how TV rights would affect the modern game. Not suprising as the teams that have filled their boots with cash over the last few years are also the teams owned by a media billionaire and an oil tycoon, good solid role models.