Even then, its no reason to bring Celtic in. Nor have clubs really failed in Europe. It doesnt solve anything at anyway, it doesnt prevent other clubs from going down
The Celtic Match Thread
- Thread starter pistolped7
- Start date
- Replies 574
- Views 55K
Even then, its no reason to bring Celtic in. Nor have clubs really failed in Europe. It doesnt solve anything at anyway, it doesnt prevent other clubs from going down
To be honest wouldn't call it rosey-mainly with the level of debt some clubs are in, and the number going into admin. Would say it's looking a bit unstable further down rather than rosey compared to the top flight. Sooner it's sorted the better so there's some stability
Agreed. But its rosy enough for people to still think English football is the best in the world at this moment in time.
I think Sky and the other TV companies which will have the final say on the matter of the OF in England, and the future of European football as a whole. Its the TV companies who give most of the money to the clubs, so I'm sure they hold have a lot of power for change.
They don't have the final say. The football league will simply block it.
If Sky want Celtic in England, then Celtic will play in England.
Irish Scouse
Bob Kelso. ❥
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,986
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The F.A. have the final say, if Sky pull out then the F.A. lose money, yes. But if Sky pullout, they lose a whole lot of their money. The F.A. and Football League will block it, and rightly so.
Bang on. There is a reason why its being blocked, and thats because the FA, Premier League and Football League gain nothing from it.
Sky have no bargaining ground because they would lose far more money than any of the organisations.
Obviously the F.A. have the final say, but I think you're underestimating Sky's influence on English football. The current Sky deal is worth £1.4 billion. Without this money the quality of the league would be a lot, lot lower.
Its also worth far more to Sky. That's the point you're missing. Not to mention Sky have zero ability to interfere with how the leagues are run. And thats even assuming that Sky want them, which there is no real word on.
Sky: we want Celtic
PL: No
Sky: we'll give you less money
PL: we'll do a deal with ESPN
Sky: Oh, maybe we dont want Celtic.
Sky could actually lose their near monopoly by trying to play where they have no control. I think you overstate what they are capable of. The premier league signed the deals, because it benefits them, not because it benefits sky, they moment it stops going their way, they go somewhere else, why do you think sky showed less games (some going to espn), but paid out more money? They would lose far more money trying to get Celtic in, than they what they would gain if Celtic or Rangers were in. From a business perspective its a non starter. From a league perspective, the Prem once unoffically voted and totally shut it down by 18-2. The football league wont even countenance the idea.
The only people pushing it are Celtic, no one else wants it or cares.
Celtic being in the Premier League would benefit Sky, that's the point I'm making, whether or not the league itself or the clubs in it would want it - and more of them than you're making out would. Obviously we disagree on Sky's influence but you only have to look at the state of the SPL, the very reason Celtic want to move to the EPL, to see what could happen if the EPL done a deal with someone other than Sky.
You've just ignored the fact that overall it doesn't benefit them. Business goes two ways. They would lose money trying to bargain it. and How can you possibly say more clubs want when the entire football league refuse to even vote on it. and the PL overwhelmingly don't want it. The only people who really benefit are Celtic.The SPL went down because Setanta folded, so you've got that back to front, ESPN aren't folding, they are massive, one of the worldwide leaders in showing sports. Tthey are still growing fast, and looking to take a chunk out of sky. Sky's plans revolve around them having a near monopoly, the PL and FL know this, that's why the deals go up every time, even though Sky actually had less games to show.
Richard Scudamore dismisses Premier League move for Old Firm
• Idea mooted after Rangers went into administration• Premier League at present limited to English and Welsh clubs
- Press Association
- guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 20 March 2012 15.54 GMT
- Article history
Some have suggested Rangers could move to the English league pyramid. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive, does not believe Celtic and Rangers will ever be allowed to join the English top flight.Suggestions the Old Firm clubs will attempt to leave the Scottish Premier League have surfaced again after Rangers went into administration. One idea would be that Rangers could re-form as a new club and play in England but Scudamore insisted he could not see it happening – and the Old Firm in England's top flight would go against Premier League regulations.Scudamore said:
"Our rules are simple. It says we're a league formed for clubs that play in England and Wales. I don't see that ever changing. I don't see that changing on my watch, not that my watch may last for long. There's more in it for them than there is for us."The Premier League clubs voted overwhelmingly against allowing the Old Firm clubs into a two-tier Premier League as part of a proposal put forward by the Bolton chairman Phil Gartside in November 2009. The main attraction for Celtic and Rangers would be finance – even the bottom club in the Premier League earns several times more in television money than the two Old Firm clubs
There, I cant make it any clearer for you
Last edited:
Celtic v Manchester United, City, Arsenal, Liverpool etc = high viewers for Sky, more money for tv rights = more money for premier league clubs, home games v celtic = large travelling support = high gates. How does this not benefit Sky and EPL clubs?
edit: obviously I know it does not benefit every club, but the mid table and lower clubs surely have something to think about
pretty sure this isn't what we're discussing?:
"The Premier League clubs voted overwhelmingly against allowing the Old Firm clubs into a two-tier Premier League as part of a proposal put forward by the Bolton chairman Phil Gartside in November 2009.
edit: obviously I know it does not benefit every club, but the mid table and lower clubs surely have something to think about
pretty sure this isn't what we're discussing?:
"The Premier League clubs voted overwhelmingly against allowing the Old Firm clubs into a two-tier Premier League as part of a proposal put forward by the Bolton chairman Phil Gartside in November 2009.
Last edited:
Have you read anything I've written? Celtic are not as big a draw in England as you think. Every club in the Prem gets at minimum about 35 million. Playing Celtic is financially of no real relevance on match day revenue basis for the PL and indeed the Championship. The bottom clubs gets about 4 times more money than Celtic, that's why they don't care. The benefits are minimal that is why it was rejected in 2009. And on a football basis, the league is for England - Wales. No one is going to disrupt that for virtually no benefit. No one is fussed about United/Arsenal/Liverpool - Celtic, except maybe Celtic, because the footballing stock of the club isn't anywhere what it used to be back in the day.
Last edited:
Really? You obviously haven't researched the topic..
What topic? I'm talking from a financial perspective, but way to take one small part of my answer totally out of the context it was written in.
Your whole argument has been based on nobody wanting Celtic in the league as there are apparently no benefits, how did I take one small part of your answer totally out of context? Celtic has a huge worldwide fanbase, and like I said before (you obviously didn't read it), Celtic v United/Liverpool etc = high viewers = money for sky, and like you said Celtic in England = more money for English clubs. For the record I personally don't think this will happen but I don't think there is no chance of it at all, especially considering the lengths to which it has been discussed, but to suggest nobody benefits from this but Celtic would be naive.
I did read it, but you dont get the fact that the clubs get these viewers anyway. Both the PL and FL have already said that it benefits them far more, hence the vote getting shot down by the PL, and the refusal to vote by the FL. The benefits are minimal, and thus at the moment not worth the hassle. The clubs don't get money per viewer. They get a fixed amount of about 35-40 million through the deal, plus 250k extra for each game shown. Sky would get extra money from more Sky subscribers, but that wouldn't necessarily trickle down to the clubs, hence the lack of substansial benefit. The only club who really benefits is Celtic, who go from about 3m per year tv money to 40 million. No one else gets that type of benefit, hence why no one is wanting it. Unless you are calling Scuadmore, Deloitte et al naive?
These clubs get Celtic fans viewing their games? I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying mate. Obviously nobody is going to benefit from this as much as Celtic, but we would not be the only ones to benefit from this. Like you say, if Celtic join the English leagues, Celtic fans subscribing etc would lead to more Sky subscribers. This is the obvious benefit for Sky. You also said that if Sky wanted Celtic in England, they would have to pay more to the EPL in TV rights, which would mean each individual club would get a larger slice of the TV deal. If we were to start in League 1, gate recipts would also be a big deal. 6,000 Celtic fans at £25 a ticket away to teams such as Brentford and we'd be the only club benefiting?