Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2013/14 Mod warning post#7005

Paulegend

Devilman40k wrote: »

Might have been Jan 2010 you seen that. Witsel cost Zenit £32.5m they'd want at least that back

Knex. wrote: »

Hadn't heard anything Villa related, but would be fairly sure it wasn't Witsel. Both Club and price are below what you would expect for him, no disrespect intended for Villa.

I mean, if he does become available, you're competing against the likes of Madrid, Arsenal, United, and even maybe Juve, who have a thing for midfielders.

Guy is in that tier, and as mentioned, cost Zenith a bomb two summers ago. Plenty left on his contract too, and Russian clubs don't sell cheap.

yea i was rushing around this morning getting ready for a funeral. dont know how i got defour and witsel mixed up though to be honest:o

i cant see witsel been sold on the cheap. i havent watched him play and dont keep up with the russian league but his wages seem to be quiet modest considering what they paid for him. cant see a reason for them to try to dump him regardless of whether he has been amazing or dreadful

Paulegend

Gaillimh1976 wrote: »

The likes of Stoke would get fees for their games against Liverpool/Chelsea/Arsenal/City/Utd whoever


Say for arguments sake their games against the top 8, home and away

That would be 16 live games per season for even the worst clubs

Doubt they are shown that much now

they could always sell packages rather than individual games

you could buy game weeks. so if you wanted to buy a pass for this weekend you could pay 'x' amount and that would allow you to access all the footie for the weekend.

that way you wouldnt have the problems of teams like "stoke, west brom, cardiff etc" struggling to sell games.

the prices would be distributed evenly to all teams.


im sure there are other ways of doing it too. you could buy "the liverpool package" which would be all of liverpools games. thats home and away. then the tv money could go to the home team. that means that every club gets tv money from 19 games or at the very least the top 6 teams, the relegation challengers and any derby games. meaning that there would be very few games that even the most insignificant teams (no offence intended but i mean teams that wont be in any battle at this time of the year ie: newcastle, west ham) would make money from

ush

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'd pay €600 a year for access to all currently televised Prem fixtures on my laptop / mobile with archiving. I can't be the only one...

You'd have to pay me to watch 90% of premiership games.

Knex*

Paulegend wrote: »

yea i was rushing around this morning getting ready for a funeral.

Sorry to hear it man.

Dont be at yourself

gimli2112 wrote: »

You'd have objections from the "lesser" teams, if I can call them that. Clubs like Liverpool would do very well from a specific team pass but who would buy one for Stoke?

Stoke fans obviously but you know what I mean

They money could (should) still go into a central pool to be distributed more equally amongst the league's clubs.

5starpool

5starpool wrote: »

For 12 months to subscribe to all of those would cost at least 500 on the sports channels alone, closer to 600 probably, although the threat cancellation thing can reduce that a lot. It's no wonder some people resort to more nefarious means.

You can get it down a lot in fairness if you play it right.

I have the full sky sports pack and the BT/setanta pack. Sky sports is 210 for the year and I got on a month to month deal for BT setanta from Christmas so that will cost me 51 euro and I will cancel it for the end of the season. So overall 261 euro for the year (except the first few months of the season for BT). Overall works out at 471 euro when the entertainment pack is included.

Biggest problem with paying for BT is there is nothing else on any of the channels in that pack bar premier league games that interest me. I watch golf, darts etc also on Sky sports so don't mind paying the sub for that for the full year, I actually wouldn't be without it over the summer because of the Golf.

Gbear

ush wrote: »

You'd have to pay me to watch 90% of premiership games.

That's kinda the point really.

We should have the option to watch exactly what we want. We already do. TV companies and legitimate internet providers just haven't caught up yet.
Different people want very different things so one basic package (or 3 if you want to see all the televised games - Setanta, Sky and BT) just isn't that attractive unless it's the only option.

D'Agger

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

They money could (should) still go into a central pool to be distributed more equally amongst the league's clubs.

So other teams benefit financially from the draw of the larger clubs? If I'm an MD of a leading PL club then I don't want other teams benefiting from my teams revenue streams tbqh

ush

Paulegend wrote: »

im sure there are other ways of doing it too. you could buy "the liverpool package" which would be all of liverpools games. thats home and away.

Clubs will eventually show their own games via their websites. The middle man will be cut out. Owners are hanging on to premiership clubs waiting for broadband to eventually earn them a fortune.

The whole idea of TV money and media empires using football as a means of establishing themselves, seems very pre-internet.

Devilman40k

D'Agger wrote: »

So other teams benefit financially from the draw of the larger clubs? If I'm an MD of a leading PL club then I don't want other teams benefiting from my teams revenue streams tbqh

You could say that they do already considering the global appeal of the PL and the increases each TV deal has had since its foundation, so extending that to online season passes shouldn't be an issue

ush

Gbear wrote: »

TV companies and legitimate internet providers just haven't caught up yet.

The clubs will sort this out. No more middle man.

Paulegend

Knex. wrote: »

Sorry to hear it man.

oh thanks no it was a mates grandfather. i hadnt seen the man himself in years but as these things go you have to pay respects and all. thanks though

D'Agger

D'Agger wrote: »

So other teams benefit financially from the draw of the larger clubs? If I'm an MD of a leading PL club then I don't want other teams benefiting from my teams revenue streams tbqh

Then why haven't United and all pulled out? Running a football club isn't exactly the same as other business, you make more more money with competition.

Dont be at yourself

So other teams benefit financially from the draw of the larger clubs? If I'm an MD of a leading PL club then I don't want other teams benefiting from my teams revenue streams tbqh

That's exactly what happens now, and is the basis of the Premier League's success. The bigger clubs are still the reason why everybody takes out a Sky, al Jazeera, ESPN subscription, but the money is distributed on a relatively equal basis.

A proposal to sell packages per club (a season ticket) or similar would operate on the same basis for the league and its club -- it's ultimately just about maximising the value of the rights by packaging them in a way that will extract the most money from fans.

Paulegend

Gbear wrote: »

That's kinda the point really.

We should have the option to watch exactly what we want. We already do. TV companies and legitimate internet providers just haven't caught up yet.
Different people want very different things so one basic package (or 3 if you want to see all the televised games - Setanta, Sky and BT) just isn't that attractive unless it's the only option.

i remember back in the 90's when sky where first looking at buying big time into the premier league. there was talk of sky showing every single manchester united match. so the idea was that it was mostly united games and just the odd big match after that. then the premier league drew up the draft concerning distribution and tv rights and so on.

it would be a shame if the big teams. liverpool included. where able to sell their own rights to the games and make as much as they can from it leaving the not so popular teams to just fade away.

it would just turn our game from one of the most entertaining leagues in the world to the german or spanish league.

DrumSteve

Paulegend wrote: »

i remember back in the 90's when sky where first looking at buying big time into the premier league. there was talk of sky showing every single manchester united match. so the idea was that it was mostly united games and just the odd big match after that. then the premier league drew up the draft concerning distribution and tv rights and so on.

it would be a shame if the big teams. liverpool included. where able to sell their own rights to the games and make as much as they can from it leaving the not so popular teams to just fade away.

it would just turn our game from one of the most entertaining leagues in the world to the german or spanish league.

I really enjoy watching the German and Spanish League.

Paulegend

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

That's exactly what happens now, and is the basis of the Premier League's success. The bigger clubs are still the reason why everybody takes out a Sky, al Jazeera, ESPN subscription, but the money is distributed on a relatively equal basis.

A proposal to sell packages per club (a season ticket) or similar would operate on the same basis for the league and its club -- it's ultimately just about maximising the value of the rights by packaging them in a way that will extract the most money from fans.

but what if you could only buy the home games? or pay for an away game at a premium pay per view price? which would go to the respective home team

i dont see how it would work myself. i think the only real thing you could do is if the tv companies could show every single game in the league and offer pay by month subscriptions

even if every game was available via red button or alternative channels/broadcasters then i wouldnt mind paying what we do for sky now

Paulegend

DrumSteve wrote: »

I really enjoy watching the German and Spanish League.

but would you watch sevilla against valencia?? or leverkusen against wolfsburg??

im not trying to be a smartass or anything i just think that the mid table teams in engalnd have more international appeal than the ones in spain and germany and even italy.

we have united liverpool chelsea arsenal city

then spurs newcastle villa everton

thats probably the most popular teams in the league. thats 9 clubs that you may or may not agree have a strong fanbase

in germany spain and italy could they boast 9 strongish clubs each?

the only thing im saying really is that in those leagues there are less strong mid table sides.

if we sold our rights to tv on a club by club basis the gap between us and the likes of cardiff would get even bigger as we would have a huge amount of tv revenue compared to their limited fraction. this is what happens in spain comparing barca to rayo

Dont be at yourself

Paulegend wrote: »

but what if you could only buy the home games? or pay for an away game at a premium pay per view price? which would go to the respective home team

i dont see how it would work myself. i think the only real thing you could do is if the tv companies could show every single game in the league and offer pay by month subscriptions

even if every game was available via red button or alternative channels/broadcasters then i wouldnt mind paying what we do for sky now

Regardless of if home or away games are bought, the total sum of money would be pooled together and divided equally amongst all teams (with certain weightings for league position, etc).

Like I say; the concept for the teams is the same. The only difference is how the rights-holders (TV companies) package the matches to extract the most money from the fans.

mike65

Paulegend wrote: »

but would you watch sevilla against valencia?? or leverkusen against wolfsburg??

im not trying to be a smartass or anything i just think that the mid table teams in engalnd have more international appeal than the ones in spain and germany and even italy.

we have united liverpool chelsea arsenal city

then spurs newcastle villa everton

thats probably the most popular teams in the league. thats 9 clubs that you may or may not agree have a strong fanbase

in germany spain and italy could they boast 9 strongish clubs each?

the only thing im saying really is that in those leagues there are less strong mid table sides.

if we sold our rights to tv on a club by club basis the gap between us and the likes of cardiff would get even bigger as we would have a huge amount of tv revenue compared to their limited fraction. this is what happens in spain comparing barca to rayo

Hnmmm I reckon more people have heard of and seen Valencia than Villa! Or Hamburg than Everton.

THE ELP has six teams that are of some interest - LFC, MU, ARSE, CHELSEA, CITY, SPURS the rest are nowhere really.

Turtyturd

mike65 wrote: »

Hnmmm I reckon more people have heard of and seen Valencia than Villa! Or Hamburg than Everton.

A couple of my mates are Villa fans and they consider it a chore to watch them when they don't even have to pay for it.

D'Agger

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

Regardless of if home or away games are bought, the total sum of money would be pooled together and divided equally amongst all teams (with certain weightings for league position, etc).

Like I say; the concept for the teams is the same. The only difference is how the rights-holders (TV companies) package the matches to extract the most money from the fans.

The bit in bold is what was missing for me regarding my earlier statement - brainfart

5starpool

I can't see Premier League allowing individual rights selling any time soon at all. There is a reason they have gone to lengths to have things relatively equitable in this area, and unless there is a real and substantial threat of a breakaway league (domestic or otherwise) then I can't see anything, even a compromise agreement, changing in the next 10 years.

TV/broadcasting companies may offer up some streaming only packages for games that are shown on their channels or else as part of a separate thing they pay the PL for in order to allow a gamepass type system. I think though it would still be done via broadcasting partners rather than clubs negotiating their own deals.

Paulegend

mike65 wrote: »

Hnmmm I reckon more people have heard of and seen Valencia than Villa! Or Hamburg than Everton.

THE ELP has six teams that are of some interest - LFC, MU, ARSE, CHELSEA, CITY, SPURS the rest are nowhere really.

but can you name 6 clubs bigger than valencia in spain or 6 clubs bigger than hamburg in germany


barca, madrid, a madr, a bilbao.............

bayern, leverkusen, dortmund, werder bremen..........

maybe there are other teams with appeal and i could be very wrong but i doubt that there are more people watching bilbao or bremen than there are watching villa or everton

DrumSteve

Paulegend wrote: »

but would you watch sevilla against valencia?? or leverkusen against wolfsburg??

im not trying to be a smartass or anything i just think that the mid table teams in engalnd have more international appeal than the ones in spain and germany and even italy.

we have united liverpool chelsea arsenal city

then spurs newcastle villa everton

thats probably the most popular teams in the league. thats 9 clubs that you may or may not agree have a strong fanbase

in germany spain and italy could they boast 9 strongish clubs each?

the only thing im saying really is that in those leagues there are less strong mid table sides.

if we sold our rights to tv on a club by club basis the gap between us and the likes of cardiff would get even bigger as we would have a huge amount of tv revenue compared to their limited fraction. this is what happens in spain comparing barca to rayo

I would definitely watch those games if they were on.

Though I spent most of my youth watching DDSL/LSL/LOI matches in the cold and pissings of rain, so if it has a football in it i'll probably watch it.

woodyg

any news on injuries for the weekend?

ush

Paulegend wrote: »

maybe there are other teams with appeal and i could be very wrong but i doubt that there are more people watching bilbao or bremen than there are watching villa or everton

Teams with appeal? Like some kind of magic dust that cable channel's marketing departments sprinkle on them.

You're falling for the hype. The german league has happier punters and their national side seems to do ok out of it.

Sir Gallagher

Turtyturd wrote: »

A couple of my mates are Villa fans and they consider it a chore to watch them when they don't even have to pay for it.

Just like watching Ireland. Groups of lads sitting around pretending to be interested, glued to the clock, daydreaming about kicking Robbie Keane up the arse.

Boom_Bap

I have German TV in my house, and would sit and watch any game that I came accross. It was great for keeping tabs on Babel at Hoffenheim.

In fairness, the German football league is alot closer that the premier league, so you'd get a decent game. Also, there is decent style of football, and not hoofball being played. This also filters down the leagues as well.
The team I support in Germany is Babbelsberg 03 and they are in the 3rd division. So once or twice a year I manage to catch a home game when I'm over there, and the standard of football is pretty decent, ball on the deck type stuff.

Paulegend

ush wrote: »

Teams with appeal? Like some kind of magic dust that cable channel's marketing departments sprinkle on them.

You're falling for the hype. The german league has happier punters and their national side seems to do ok out of it.

yea your probably right

id just be worried that if english teams sold their own coverage then teams at the bottom might aswell not dream of one day being the biggest club in the world. they already cant invest as its against the rules so if their tv revenue was limited also they might aswell not bother

ush

Paulegend wrote: »

yea your probably right

id just be worried that if english teams sold their own coverage then teams at the bottom might aswell not dream of one day being the biggest club in the world. they already cant invest as its against the rules so if their tv revenue was limited also they might aswell not bother

TV revenue won't help teams close the gap. Sheiks and oligarchs is what it takes.

Stargate

Vicxas wrote: »

The amount these guys charge can be extortionate, I think it is down to the PL though and how much they charge, but why can BT sport show X amount of games and only charge €20 a month

It's all relative though Vicxas , how else can a club pay a player £ 300,000 / € 363,000 a week !

Sky pay the clubs , customers pay sky etc etc

Crazy money everywhere in the modern game , Agents making a killing on one single move etc . Players holding clubs to ransom .

Paulegend

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I have German TV in my house, and would sit and watch any game that I came accross. It was great for keeping tabs on Babel at Hoffenheim.

In fairness, the German football league is alot closer that the premier league, so you'd get a decent game. Also, there is decent style of football, and not hoofball being played. This also filters down the leagues as well.
The team I support in Germany is Babbelsberg 03 and they are in the 3rd division. So once or twice a year I manage to catch a home game when I'm over there, and the standard of football is pretty decent, ball on the deck type stuff.

but how many people would buy the rights to just babbelsbergs games?

i love watching games from other leagues. i like im sure many here grew up watching the italian games on channel 4. when i lived in australia i watched a lot of the games over. i just mean that purely down to the "package" idea would clubs in the lower end of germany sell the rights to their games as well as a club like bayern could. or could acrington stanely (who a day) ever dream of becoming as big as manchester united (without united falling to their level of course lol sorry united fans) or liverpool or chelsea or so on. the fact is that ideas like that make the big clubs bigger and the gap top the little clubs wider

garra

D'Agger wrote: »

So other teams benefit financially from the draw of the larger clubs? If I'm an MD of a leading PL club then I don't want other teams benefiting from my teams revenue streams tbqh

Yes thats correct. And whats the alternative? 5 or 6 big clubs making all the TV money and everyone else making do with peanuts, what would be the net result of that? They would have to create an "ultimate league" with just those top 6 clubs as the remainder could not compete financially.. BORING

Boom_Bap

Paulegend wrote: »

but how many people would buy the rights to just babbelsbergs games?

0 people! It would be cheaper to go to the stadium.

Dickerty

woodyg wrote: »

any news on injuries for the weekend?

Well I felt my hammy this morning, but I think it's ok now.

Oh, did you mean the TEAM??

Paulegend

ush wrote: »

TV revenue won't help teams close the gap. Sheiks and oligarchs is what it takes.

but they are not allowed anymore under finacial fair play (if this global warming does exist). they can upgrade facilities and stuff but they could never invest in big players.

for a club to make money they have to be successful and to become successful you need to have money. the only way of getting money according to ffp is you erarn it through competition sponsorship and commercial activity including tv rights.

they cant get it through competition as they dont have the squads or even individual players top win anything. they cant do it through sponsorship as they arent successful enough to attract sponsors that make a difference. so its down to commercial activity. its why you see teams like cardiff change to a marketable kit or you see hull tyring to capitilise on its nickname. they are trying to appeal to a wider audience. a superficial audience but an audience that will buy an extra few hundred thousand jerseys along the way. other than that they rely on tv revenue. if they struggled to sell their games to tv themselves they would miss out on the 70+ million every club recieved this season from it. thats a lot of cash to miss out on just because they cant sell their games the way bigger clubs can

Paulegend

Boom_Bap wrote: »

0 people! It would be cheaper to go to the stadium.

if only they could drop the prices in england im sure none of us would be having this debate and instead gong to most games

mayordenis

With FFP they can invest a certain amount in the squad, so you're right and you're wrong. They can constantly improve the team at a reasonable rate, just there in theory should be no more City/PSG/Chelsea style carry on.

Anyone who thinks it's case of the big teams are set now, and that's the way it will be forever isn't looking at the big picture.

Paulegend

mayordenis wrote: »

With FFP they can invest a certain amount in the squad, so you're right and you're wrong. They can constantly improve the team at a reasonable rate, just there in theory should be no more City/PSG/Chelsea style carry on.

Anyone who thinks it's case of the big teams are set now, and that's the way it will be forever isn't looking at the big picture.

they can invest up to 40 million over the course of 3 years isnt it? or is that just the euro ffp?

*if city where making 100 million from tv revenue and cardiff made 5 million from its tv revenue. both clubs can invest 'x' amount also on top of that.

that would mean that every season city could invest 95+x more than cardiff

meaning that this year its 95 + x

next year it is 190 + x2

2 years from now it would be 285 + x3

then that means in 5 years time city would have been able to invest over a half a billion in their squad more than cardiff according to ffp

surely that is the big picture right there



*im just saying tv revenue and chairman investment as there is way too much involved if i mentioned everything with sponsors etc.

by the way this is how ffp will work in regards to teams sponsorships aswell. the teams able to make more right now can spend more while the teams unable to get similar deals will fall further behind and scenarios such as buying roman buying chelsea or the shieks buying city will no longer be possible. without those things happening city would be still battling relegation and chelsea would be where newcastle and spurs are and probably fair to say where liverpool have been lately

LuckyLloyd

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Just like watching Ireland. Groups of lads sitting around pretending to be interested, glued to the clock, daydreaming about kicking Robbie Keane up the arse.

hefferboi

Sunday will be the first league match I'll miss live (on telly) this season

greendom

hefferboi wrote: »

Sunday will be the first league match I'll miss live (on telly) this season

Maybe not... Game is on Saturday!

Paulegend

hefferboi wrote: »

Sunday will be the first league match I'll miss live (on telly) this season

my bloody mate is getting married in april 26th........................ until the game was switced to a sunday kick off on sky i was going to miss liverpool at home to chelsea. but now i get to have a hangover cure while watching what could be a potential decider:o

i love sky sports

barone

roughly a tenner a week to watch english/italian/spanish/french/german leagues ,euro competitions...its a fckin bargain in my eyes,that is if you can stomach a lot of footie, i can.

and on top of that the docu and entertainment channels in the down time



i dont drink, maybe thats why i think its a bargain,coz i watch so much of it.

mayordenis

What does not drinking have to do with anything?

Paulegend

well its 4 o clock on a friday evening im sure most of us are thinking about a pint

LiamoSail

Boom_Bap wrote: »

0 people! It would be cheaper to go to the stadium.

I've actually been to a Babelsberg game, St Pauli at home in a friendly. One of the best games I've ever been to

Turtyturd

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Just like watching Ireland. Groups of lads sitting around pretending to be interested, glued to the clock, daydreaming about kicking Robbie Keane up the arse.

I will openly admit that I watch Ireland games because I have invested a lot of time watching Robbie Keane badly attempting overhead kicks and would hate to miss it if he ever pulled it off.

Boom_Bap

LiamoSail wrote: »

I've actually been to a Babelsberg game, St Pauli at home in a friendly. One of the best games I've ever been to

Alot of the Babbelberg supporters also support St Pauli. You'll see them with St. Pauli badges/pins on the jerseys and hats. So there was probably alot of love in the crowd.