Football 2011-2012

[kaosmark2]

only in England can a team qualify and be full of negative comments .

[ralph250]

http://twitter.com/#!/eaoweneaowen

[The Nal]

only in England can a team qualify and be full of negative comments .

Edited October 10, 2011 by The Nal

[pink_triangle]

only in England can a team qualify and be full of negative comments .

[kaosmark2]

I also disagree with a lot of the calls from the media that Ashley Young has proven himself to be a top international player, again I think he needs to face some stronger opposition before those claims.

[The Nal]

I was amazed( although I should be used to it by now) by the attitude of the English media last week. All I heard was how England would win and and that the result wasn't really in doubt. Where have these people been the last 3 years. Pink_Traingle mentioned in the Rugby thread, because they lost at the quarter final stage there needs to be a 'Root and Branch' enquiry as to what went wrong where everything pointed to them only getting to the Quarter final.

The arrogance is astounding!!

Edited October 10, 2011 by The Nal

[the_hedge]

Well done England I say and roll on 2012. Don't know why the English public and media aren't saying similar?!

Sensible article from Red Nev here.

[Ed209]

Because they are arrogant fuckers who think that England are still a football elite and should qualify with ease.

[the_hedge]

Alright, chill out. Bitter much?

Well based on FIFA rankings you could make a claim that England are football elite, and we did actually qualify with ease.

Now i don't actually think we are football elite, and the current FIFA rankings are deceptive in how far I think we are from winning a tournament. and I don't think many England supporters think we're football elite, they just think we should be football elite. Saying that, we're still one of the few international teams who can consistently travel to difficult places and get results.

Me? i'm just happy we're at another major tournament. I don't really know why everyone is doom and gloom. If Rooney hadn't been sent off I think the mood would have been a lot more positive.

Edited October 10, 2011 by the_hedge

[pink_triangle]

In fairness, in the rugby, and this goes for Ireland too, getting to the last 8 of a tournament with 8 teams in it (sorry Scotland!) is no real achievement. Its a minimum requirement. Even if Ireland had have lost to Australia we still would have got the the quarters.

The footie is obviously quite different. Having to qualify for a start, is an achievement in itself. England didn't qualify for WC94 with players like Gazza, Shearer and Adams or for Euro 2008 with players like Rooney, Terry (when he was brilliant) and Lamps so why are they getting abuse for qualifying this time, with lesser players like Walcott and Cahill playing in a very awkward away match in biblical rain with 10 men?!

Well done England I say and roll on 2012. Don't know why the English public and media aren't saying similar?!

[The Nal]

I disagree with a couple of things here, firstly the gulf in class between england and the likes of scotland and samoa in rugby union is far less than the difference between england and the likes of switzerland and montenegro in football.

[pink_triangle]

The gulf between Liverpool and those teams is much greater than the gulf between England and Switzerland.

England aren't that good - thats my point. People should be happy they've qualified top of the group.

[The Nal]

I suspect the amount of fulham players who would get into the liverpool team is similar to the amount of swiss who would get in the england team.

England arent that compared to the top 10 teams in the world, but they are very consistent against weaker sides. You look at their qualification group and there are hardlly any players from wales, switzelrand, bulgaria and montenegro combined who would make the england squad never mind the team. While every outfield england player would walk into each of those countries first teams.

[pink_triangle]

Not always an indication of a teams strength though. Thats an "on paper" comparison which is rarely relevant.

Look how many top teams Wolves got a result against last season. Not many of their team would got into the Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool or Arsenals teams but they have a team spirit you cant quantify.

Part of Spains success is down to them parking the Catalan/Spanish divide which was there for so long. Greece won the Euros before remember. I cant name one of the players on that team.

[The Nal]

I wouldnt say rarely relevant, the vast majority of times the team with the best 11 players win, we just remeber the times they dont.

Edited October 11, 2011 by The Nal

[jump]

The West Ham Olympic Stadium deal has broken down, it will remain in public ownership now with the clubs having to bid to be tenants.

Edited October 11, 2011 by jump

[eFestivals]

The West Ham Olympic Stadium deal has broken down, it will remain in public ownership now with the clubs having to bid to be tenants.

yep - and West Ham will be laughing all the way to the bank.

They'll pay a rent of about £2M a year, while the stadium is maintained at a cost of about £5M a year by the taxpayer.

Brady is already on record as saying it's full steam ahead for them.

[TheGayTent]

yep - and West Ham will be laughing all the way to the bank.

They'll pay a rent of about £2M a year, while the stadium is maintained at a cost of about £5M a year by the taxpayer.

Brady is already on record as saying it's full steam ahead for them.

[eFestivals]

ahh, OK. I'd have thought that if it disadvantaged WHU too much then Brady wouldn't havce said what she has today.

And it's certainly a good deal at £2M a year (if that's what they get it for of course), with that cheap cost covering some of the branding money at least.

[TheGayTent]

ahh, OK. I'd have thought that if it disadvantaged WHU too much then Brady wouldn't havce said what she has today.

And it's certainly a good deal at £2M a year (if that's what they get it for of course), with that cheap cost covering some of the branding money at least.

Edited October 11, 2011 by TheGayTent

[eFestivals]

Under the previous scenario we were effectively going into a joint venture with Newham Borough Council where we jointly owned the long term lease. WHU would be principal landlord if you like. Income from stadium naming rights and corporate entertainment would be shared. Revenue from other tenants such as British Athletics, Essex Cricket Club, concerts etc etc would be shared.

Win win for both club and council.

The council loan the club money to pay for the amendments required to make the stadium athletic track more 'suitable' for football (not that it ever can be satisfactorily, short of knocking it down and starting again). The club need it due to their poor cash status currently - a relic of Gudmundsson. The club pay the council back post move by gifting them the land the Boleyn sits on for selling on to property developers.

Now, WHU will be no different to the other tenants, Essex Cricket, British Athletics etc and the ownership of the stadium athletics track will remain a public asset.

yeah, but given that they (supposedly) were going to live with other tenants and their wishes/needs anyway, then aside from the possible money exploitation side of things they were pretty limited in what they could do with the stadium, and they're still limited with what they can do with the stadium.

(* I say 'supposedly' cos I always reckoned for no particular reason that the plan down the line for WHU was to tear up the running track as 'not viable').

And with the rent being so cheap without any of the liabilities that would come as leaseholder then I'm finding it hard to see how the financial side of things is a major loser.

And given Brady's speed at make a statement today, then I'm thinking that neither is she.

(and it prolly means I was wrong about the plans for the track too).

Then again, perhaps it's the only game in town.

[TheGayTent]

yeah, but given that they (supposedly) were going to live with other tenants and their wishes/needs anyway, then aside from the possible money exploitation side of things they were pretty limited in what they could do with the stadium, and they're still limited with what they can do with the stadium.

[ralph250]

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."

http://www.guardian....deal?CMP=twt_gu

Edited October 11, 2011 by ralph250

[TheGayTent]

No chance of that happening, turkey's don't vote for christmas.

Only way it will happen is if there was a European Super League.

[ralph250]

No chance of that happening, turkey's don't vote for christmas.

Only way it will happen is if there was a European Super League.