No nothing to do with formations, tactics, training methods, academies, or anything else to do with how the game is actually played, but the Spanish model of TV rights, which sees the same two clubs, Real Madrid and Barcelona receiving the vast majority of TV revenue at the expense of the rest of the clubs in La Liga.

Yes that's right, while most people, i.e. those with any sense of justice and fair play, believe the Spanish model to be scandalously unfair, Liverpool are pressing for this self-same model to be adopted in this country. And why's that? So that that they themselves can profit in the same scandalously unfair fashion, possibly motivated by the need to acquire funding for their proposed new stadium.

Note that the initial proposal concerns itself only with international broadcasting rights, but there is also a suggestion that should they be successful, the same model would eventually be introduced for domestic TV rights.

From the Guardian:

Liverpool threaten breakaway from Premier League's TV rights deal

• Current deal sees top-flight clubs share billions of pounds

• Liverpool's managing director Ian Ayre raises alternative

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."

What a load of twaddle.

The reason the Premier League is the most watched of any of the leagues and arguably the most popular sporting league in the world is because the standard across all teams in the league is incredibly good. Seems to me Liverpool are a bit concerned about the rise of Spuds and City and would like their share of the top four hegemony enshrined through broadcasting rights.

Different clubs have different levels of followings throughout different countries, for example Everton have a lot of younger supporters here in Australia because of Tim Cahill, in a similar way I'd suggest Bolton might have somewhat of a following in Korea given the presence of Lee Chung-Yong.

His whole argument about everyone going to Real Madrid and Barcelona and the Premier League bubble bursting is also just silly. First there are only so many players that can go there, there is still lots of quality available. Secondly the reason the La Liga bubble is bursting and the likes of David Silva and Juan Mata are playing in the Premier League currently is because of the arrangement that he is advocating, where clubs on the second tier don't get what they deserve and run into problems trying to compete through other means (ie financing)

So Mr Ayre favours a short term option that will favour his team and ruin the league in the long run. How surprising to see Liverpool, slowly slipping from their perch, to be the one to come out and demand a bigger share.

Never the less I'd probably expect that Gourlay to come out in favour of the same thing. Luckily they need 14 out of the 20 to support the move and that won't happen. City and Spuds won't even support them because they know such a deal would help the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal who they might be pushing a little bit.

If this happens then thats my lot with football in general. Maybe he wants a count up of fans in each country and then a nice little split of the pot based on that. Utter garbage, and I hope the FA deal with this immediately and tell the stupid tosser to shut the hell up. Though I doubt that will happen.

Let them have their own agreement, banish them from the premier league and go and play with themselves, like the tossers they are.

That's unbelievable. All of the big games are broadcast on Sky/ESPN here in the UK, why should it change? Every team deserves an equal chance to be on TV, this is just appalling from Liverpool, but did we expect anything less? Unbelievable.

Guardian says the big boys say no.

Manchester United and Chelsea are among several clubs who have moved to distance themselves from Liverpool's proposal to break from the Premier League's model of collecting television rights revenue.

It is understood that Manchester United, who claim to have 333m fans globally and have targeted overseas sponsorship revenue as a route to increase income, will oppose any moves to challenge the status quo under which the Premier League sells television rights overseas on behalf of all 20 elite clubs.

A spokesman for Chelsea said: "We are supportive of the Premier League on this and want to continue with the way they sell [TV rights] collectively."

United insiders pointed out that their chief executive, David Gill, had repeatedly underlined the support of the club's owners, the Glazer family, for the collective model. Appearing before a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year, Gill said: "The collective selling of the television rights has clearly been a success and it has made things more competitive."

It is understood that Arsenal, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur will continue to back the existing arrangement that last season paid each club £17.9m.

The public stance of other big clubs will come as a disappointment to Liverpool, who were understood to believe that others would support them. Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, said that clubs in other countries, notably Real Madrid and Barcelona in Spain, have a growing financial advantage over English clubs because they secure TV deals individually.

Without the support of those who stand to benefit most the idea would be dead in the water, because none of the League's smaller clubs would vote for something that would hugely disadvantage them.

Overseas revenues could outstrip the domestic deal, currently worth £2.1bn over three years, for the first time when the Premier League launches its tender process next year.

Liverpool would need to persuade 13 of their fellow Premier League clubs of the merit of the plan in order to force through the change since any significant change to the Premier League rulebook requires a two thirds majority.

Ayre became the first representative of a leading Premier League club since Peter Kenyon at Manchester United in 2003 to challenge the collective sale of overseas TV rights, which brought in £1.4bn over the three years to 2012-13.

Ayre said: "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 feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs."

f**k off Liverpool FC.

Hilarious. He says this and immediately everyone who they thought would back them disavows the plan.

"We're never getting back among the top four, so please now lets divide up money by how many fans we have in Asia." Its exactly what Spiller says. I wonder what Shankly would be thinking right now.

The system in Spain is shameful, and designed to keep two clubs king of the heap and the rest feeding off their scraps. For years now, its been the established system that young talents go to England to become stars, and then some of them get siphoned off by the big spanish clubs for huge money. That system doesnt make me worried for the future of the Prem at all.

Two other observations on Liverpool and money:

1. They are moving to kitmaker "Warrior" next year for 25 million. Who, you ask? Warrior is a small US company that mainly does lacrosse and has nothing even resembling the global network of Nike, Adidas, Umbro or Puma. But they will pay a few million extra quid. Good luck getting the same global brand exposure from a company most people have never even heard of.

2. Hopefully Bolton are reminded of the one next time the two clubs play

Just in case anyone isn't quite sure just how bad a thing this would be for the league:

(for clarification as to what the hell I'm talking about, check out the huge gap in TV revenue between the top two clubs in Spain and the rest of the league, particularly the teams near the bottom - is it any wonder that Spain has become a two horse race?)

Edited October 12, 201113 yr by blizeH

Don't the NFL going in for 'revenue sharing' to ensure competitiveness in the sport?

I know the Red Sox guy who bought Liverpool is in baseball, and maybe they don't have an equitable TV deal in MLB. Can anyone clarify how US TV money is distributed?

I think the NFL go even further than that, Merchandising is also pooled and distributed throughout the clubs (or franchises or whatever the hell they call them). At least thats my understanding of it, though I might be wrong.

Don't the MLS do a reverse order system? The team finishing last gets the most, team finishing first gets the least? Kind of the opposite way to which most Americans seem to think society should be...

Also, this has raised an interesting question for me... expect a thread soon.

Also, Im fairly sure in Baseball theres a joint national TV deal but each team has a local deal in place also. I just read on another forum that NFL teams arent allowed to show games on TV if their ticket sales are below 70% 48 hours before a game, so as to make sure ticket sales are kept up.

I think the NFL go even further than that, Merchandising is also pooled and distributed throughout the clubs (or franchises or whatever the hell they call them). At least thats my understanding of it, though I might be wrong.

I believe you're right. NFL clubs (Jerry Jones of the Cowboys in particular) are testing the boundaries of what revenue an individual club can generate and retain for itself. Generally speaking, the NFL is the most socialist of the US leagues.

See the new Guardian series on Liverpool's owners to get an understanding of how major league baseball shares revenue. National TV money is evenly split. And rich clubs pay a tax that goes to poorer clubs. The New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox get extra money they don't have to share, from their own regional television networks, which they own.

Baseball definitely has haves and the have-nots. But money doesn't always buy happiness. Of the 4 surviving clubs in baseball's current playoffs, none are among the top 9 in revenue.

Edited October 12, 201113 yr by wxwax

I just read on another forum that NFL teams arent allowed to show games on TV if their ticket sales are below 70% 48 hours before a game, so as to make sure ticket sales are kept up.

In order for an NFL home game to be televised in its home city (TV market), the game must be completely sold-out 72 hours before kick-off.

Sometimes clubs are close and find a mass-buyer to scoop up the last tix. But the Glazers family's Tampa Bay Buccaneers, for example, have been blacked out a lot in Tampa-St. Petersburg lately.

The folly of what Ayre wants is that a large number of La Liga clubs are in administration.

I think the number of clubs in trouble is 6 in Spain's first division, and 20+ in the top two divisions.

Why anyone would want to replicate that in England is beyond me. It's insanity.

The core issue behind Liverpool's insane proposal is more money to buy better players.

If we're making comparisons to US pro sports leagues, that issue is partially addressed via a mechanism which would probably be impossible to impose on an international sport like football.

In the US, young players progress through a fairly rigid system of high school, then college, then professional leagues. Sometimes they skip college, but the mechanism is still the same.

Once a year, in each league, clubs take turns selecting which amateur young player they want. It's called a draft. And the order of the draft is the reverse of their record the previous season. In other words, the worst clubs pick first, the best clubs pick last.

It's a great way of making new talent available to all. If the club and the player can't come to terms, the club holds the rights to him for a designated amount of time (it varies by league but is never less than a year.)

Great system. But I can't see it working in football. Too many countries, no designated feeder system, impossible to get a consensus.

No one has posted this piece of brilliance from the Fiver in the Guardian. So without further ado.

BITING THE HAND THAT GREEDS YOU

The Fiver's always prided itself on displaying knowledge of its subject deeper than a philosophy lecture at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, so it's with some distress that it learns Liverpool's Hungarian chairman John B Henry knows almost nothing about the Goodison Park club he bought three years ago from a dragon round the back of Sainsbury's.

In an interview with Big Paper's David Conn, Henry admits he knew "virtually nothing about Liverpool Football Club nor EPL" when he invested in the club, while chairman Tom Werner said at the time he "certainly knew about Manchester United", something which will endear him to Liverpool fans around the world. So, if Henry's Fenway Sports Group didn't know that much about Liverpool, what was the impetus behind the purchase of the club?

Well it turns out it was that most American of things: the dreaded spectre of socialism. In the US, where Fenway own the Boston Red Sox, profits are shared more equally among sports teams, something that Werner isn't too keen on. "We realise [the Red Sox] are part of a league, but we feel the burden on the top is higher than appropriate," said Werner, checking for communists under the bed. "We feel we deserve the fruits of our labour," he added, checking for trade unionists and anarchists while he was at it.

So where better to head to than the Premier League, a place where a money-grabbing, eff-you mentality may as well be part of the fit and proper persons test. In fact, Liverpool are getting into the Premier League way of doing things to such an extent that they now want to sell their foreign TV rights on a club-by-club basis rather than share them with - shudder - poorer clubs. "What we are actually doing [at the moment with TV rights] is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs," said Liverpool MD Ian Ayre, failing to mention that Liverpool have actually been disadvantaging themselves against other big European clubs by not being very good at football.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/12/the-fiver-liverpool-republic-ireland?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Ffootball%2Frss+%28Football%29

I particularly enjoyed the bolded bit. Who knew we were all just a bunch of god damn socialists?

One thing that does amuse me a lot in all this is Ayre has unwittingly exposed Fenway's hand in purchasing Liverpool. They are there for the same reason as Hicks and Gillet, to make a profit of Liverpool's name and tradition.

Time to dust out those 'Built by Shanks, Ruined by Yanks' banners again me thinks, it's only a matter of time....

f**k erm! Will never happen.

No one has posted this piece of brilliance from the Fiver in the Guardian. So without further ado.

One thing that does amuse me a lot in all this is Ayre has unwittingly exposed Fenway's hand in purchasing Liverpool. They are there for the same reason as Hicks and Gillet, to make a profit of Liverpool's name and tradition.

Time to dust out those 'Built by Shanks, Ruined by Yanks' banners again me thinks, it's only a matter of time....

For a more balanced view, you need to read Part 1 of David Conn's special series on Liverpool's owners in The Guardian.

It's from his writing that the Fiver scrounged its tidbit.

In Boston, the group has reinvested its profits into the club. The article strongly suggests the same model will be followed at Liverpool, with stadium renovation being a top priority. It also makes it clear that that the reason Henry led the purchase of Liverpool is because he could see the potential revenue from international marketing, which the club would be allowed to keep.

If you're looking for a profit motive, it wouldn't be in pocketing annual revenue. It would be in gorwing the overall value of their investment. In other words, making Liverpool a richer, more valuable club.

wxwax since when has reason gotten in the way of hanging sh*t onto Liverpool?

I'll read the article though

No one has posted this piece of brilliance from the Fiver in the Guardian. So without further ado.

http://www.guardian....+%28Football%29

I particularly enjoyed the bolded bit. Who knew we were all just a bunch of god damn socialists?

One thing that does amuse me a lot in all this is Ayre has unwittingly exposed Fenway's hand in purchasing Liverpool. They are there for the same reason as Hicks and Gillet, to make a profit of Liverpool's name and tradition.

Time to dust out those 'Built by Shanks, Ruined by Yanks' banners again me thinks, it's only a matter of time....

Hilarious and well put. I am glad to see that every club in England that has commented on this nonsense left Liverpool out in the cold.

Just to put Fenway Sports group's bleating into perspective here is a chart on baseball salaries:

The Red Sox, second from the right, are the mortal enemies of the Yankees, furthest right. Spending in baseball is out of control, but the top teams spend whatever they want and are usually rewarded with most of the success in the league.

And while TV deals might be evenly shared, "revenue sharing" as they call it in the MLB is not mandatory. Its only based on a luxury tax, i.e. how much over a threshold of payroll a team wants to spend on salaries. So, for example, if the threshold is 100 million, and Red Sox decide to spend 145 then they will owe tax on that extra 45, the payment of which goes to a fund which is then divided among the smaller market teams (Pittsburgh, Oakland, Tampa Bay, Kansas City). Basically, if you dont like how money is divided up make your team more effecient and stop paying that money. But the critical difference is Boston has had recent success after years of mediocrity. Liverpool have been just the opposite.

Its a shame some of the idiots in this country dont realize Socialism as they would understand it is ingrained into even the most American of sporting institutions. Then again, the same idiots who carry on calling everything socialism would f**king wilt in three months without the protections and services of government, so what the hell do they know.