So are you saying FSC (well, their parent company), which owns EPL rights in the U.S., can't sublicense specific games to other channels/persons? Doesn't GolTV do the same thing with La Liga, where one game is sold to Cablevision each week?
That would only make FSC more money, not Man Utd. Any payments for a sub-licencing agreement (presuming one doesn't exist currently) would be paid to the premiership, not Man Utd. Is there really that much of a demand for PPV Man Utd games anyway? Apart from anything else PPV would limit the club's exposure to a potential American fan base, not increase it.
Exactly. It's a question of whether Glazer might spend some cash to get the TV exposure. My point is that if he wants to, it can be done. I'm not saying he would put games from FSC on PPV, rather he could take games that might normally be PPV and put them on a regular channel so fans of the team could watch. Whether he will or not remains to be seen.
No conspiracy. Simply good business sense. There is not as much income from commercials per-viewer per-hour as in the made-for-TV sports. The advertiser doesn't care how many billions might be watching a soccer match. There are no big holes for his commercials. (A really well-publicized match might have something like a pre-game show or even a post-game show with advertising slots.) Generally, The networks simply have no commercial slots to sell.
Me: Yeah becuase all the owners are in it for the love. Ipswichfan4life:Yea actually most not all but lots are in it for the love! "most" RichardL: Virtually all club owners here are in it because they love the ego trip of running the club, whether it's in the "saviour" role or just a lust for glory (those kind seldom have a happy ending). "Virtually all" MushyG:i'm sorry anthony, but ipswich4life, is right a majority of teams over here are run/managed by people who love the club. "a majority" So not all owners are in it for the love. Thanks for proving me right.
Yet the lack of commericials doesn't stop it from being popular in other countries, but then again maybe the ratings have more to do with it.
Television didn't shape the competing games (few that there are) in other nations. Pete Rozelle's genius was in realizing that the NFL had to jump hoops for the media to really become big. The NFL jazzed the game for TV and invested heavily in getting lazy newspaper reporters to become shills.
This Liverpool fan could nominate some really neat U.S. coaches for shipment to ManU. Cheap. And we'll help them pack for the long trip to Manchester. Sandwiches, chips, you know...
The Glazers' need to increase TV revenue in the States and Asia. That to me is the best move they can make. I think the Glazers could/should sell small portions to some US sports magnates ( Steinbrenner, Snyder, Anschultz, Davidson, Jerry Jones). It would do three things. 1.) They'd find a way to increase TV revenue by circumventing the regulations of the Football League TV package. 2.) They could definitely influence TV markets in the US to put more Man Utd matches on the air. 3.) Man Utd would instantly become the Most Loved and Hated Sports Organization in the World.
you weren't "proved right", you were shown up to be ignorant of the situation here. The fact that perhaps at most 1% of owners are unscrupulous individuals who see selling a club's land for their own personal gain as a way of making money in no way backs up what you said. Yes, you didn't give a percentage of the number of people who aren't in it for the love of the game, so even if only one owner in 1000 is an asset-stripping bastard you can technically claim you were correct, but that is a million miles from your implication that it would be naive to think owners are in it for the love of the game. You thought the game here was full of owners buying clubs as an investment - in it purely for the money. You were wrong. Just deal with it.
You do realise than any extra income, which would be tiny by the way (overseas rights always go for peanuts), would have to be split 20 ways? To make £5 million extra a year the TV deal would have to be worth £100 million ($180 million). There's no way the premiership could remotely hope to get a US TV deal of that size.
as I said above, overseas rights go for tiny amounts, and "The Glazers" can't sell TV rights because they don't own the rights, the premiership does. very very hard to do. They have no legal grounds to do so (the EU has already stated that they are happy that collective agreements are fine), but the other clubs could quite legally vote them out of the premiership (and effectively out of existence) if they wished. Who would watch? How many Man Utd fans are there in the USA?
I meant partial ownership of the team itself not TV rights. Not to mention, they (the Glazer boys) could always "deal with the devil" when it comes to Sky/Fox. (Mr. Murdoch) I didn't say it'd be easy. But that's why you combine a consortium of controversial owners. I didn't say violate the TV agreement, I said find "el loophole grande". Which may mean including Mr. Murdoch en "los deal de sweethart". How many in Japan? or Korea? TheGrowing US population and the ratings' for the most popular football club in the world would be enough for cable TV.
Closer ties with Murdoch wouldn't be easy as he has already had a move to buy Man Utd blocked by the monopolies commission. Now thay they've delisted the company, they also won't be paying dividends any more (that's one of the key savings that'll ease their debt burden), so there's little incentive for anyone else to invest. I really don't see where you are going with "finding loopholes" and sweetheart deals. TV rights are sold collectively. That's about a definitive as it gets. You also have to appreciate that if they do try to legally challenge that agreement, the premiership has the ultimate sanction open to them. The Glazers did not buy a premiership "franchise", they bought a sports club. That club has no legal right to its premiership place. and what are the ratings for Man Utd in the US? Cable TV pays tiny amounts. Even if you got two million people watching a week, which would be a staggering achievement, how much would that be worth in advertising revenue? Not a lot. And it would still need to be split 20 ways.
What will Glazer do to MU? I think: 1. raise tickets prices 2. negotiate bettertv deal 3. sell more shirts 4. more tours around the world 5. sell stars 6. buy cheaper players 7. payoff debts 8. sell club and make profits
>>you weren't "proved right", you were shown up to be ignorant of the situation here.<< Richard L Once again... Me:Yeah becuase all the owners are in it for the love You: "Virtually" all club owners here are in it because they love the ego trip of running the club, whether it's in the "saviour" role or just a lust for glory (those kind seldom have a happy ending). "Virtually" So that means that not all owners are in it for the love. You can try again, but I will just drag your "virtually" out into the street again. Ready to concede.....Richard?
No, because you are being pathetic. It's clear as day what you were implying, and it wasn't that there are one or two owners out there somewhere who after a quick buck. Why else the accusation that somebody would be naive to think any different? Like I said, you were wrong. Get over it. If you want to argue that technically you weren't wrong because you didn't say the exact words people would infer from your remarks, then I suggest you PM rangers00 and buddy up to form a tenuous argument tag-team.
Anthony you don't have a point! most owners are in it for the love, so just sit down and stop arguing!
Glazer will increase ManU successes on the field, increase revenues, and generally make most of you morons who are complaining eat crow. It is gonna be "suite" IMO and I detest ManU, although they are growing on me more and more with every stupid "Glazer will kill ManU" related post.
any particular reason why? How about... a) look what he did at Tampa b) he's a billionaire - he must know what he's doing c) ...err... d) another reason Any particular ideas about how you think he'll raise the revenues to pay for the debt and the large amount of team rebuilding required to make the team successful? (as a hint, breaking away from the TV deal and selling and leasing back the stadium have been denied/blocked). To be honest I'm starting to feel sorry for the guys, as I'm sure they do want the team to be successful. Still, I'm sure their nice little ride in an armoured police van the other day must have been quite exciting for them.