Herald report on what Argyle get from the ''loadsamoney'' Sky tv football deal.

So effectively zero change, just more money.

That depends on how you look at it.

No doubt the club owners at our level will relish getting a few more pounds. Every little helps after all.

Will it help Argyle? No.

There's various reasons why not. We'll get a few more quid but so too will our rivals so we gain nothing compared to our competitors.

But we'll have a few more quid. Yes. But... Due to both the general inflationary effect of the money from the top down and due to the clubs lower down being able to bid a little more than they might have been able to before we won't actually be able to recruit better (i.e. more expensive) players.

I can't see how this will benefit us at all. Once the swings are offset against the roundabouts we'll probably be worse off.

Everyone gets a little bit more money respective of their league standing and media manipulative popularity and the gap that already exists widens. So yeah, no change, just the scale grows.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That depends on how you look at it.

No doubt the club owners at our level will relish getting a few more pounds. Every little helps after all.

Will it help Argyle? No.

There's various reasons why not. We'll get a few more quid but so too will our rivals so we gain  nothing compared to our competitors.

But we'll have a few more quid. Yes. But... Due to both the general inflationary effect of the money from the top down and due to the clubs lower down being able to bid a little more than they might have been able to before we won't actually be able to recruit better (i.e. more expensive) players.

I can't see how this will benefit us at all. Once the swings are offset against the roundabouts we'll probably be worse off.

Erm I know I never went to uni or anything but shorely we gain £160k? Whichever way you look at it we gain, maybe not massively but we do gain.

But so does every team we play. So we gain financially, as you say (and so did I -several times), but don't gain any advantage against our competitors.

And the general inflationary effect means we'll get less bang for each buck meaning we have to spend more to buy the same.

So swings will be offset against roundabouts.

(I'm sure I've said almost exactly this already.)

But why should the deal offer us an advantage against anybody else? What it does do is offer £160k towards operating expenses and turnover, not enough IMO due to the size of the pot but there you go, the argument needs to be to have a bigger share of the pot for all not favouring one team against the other although I'm sure you weren't advocating that Argo are deserving of more than anyone else?

No I'm not.

It appears to me, "University-educated" * and all that I am (which I am not by the way - at least I don't think so... it's quite complicated - have never claimed to be and makes no odds to anything anyway) that arguing that the TV deal is not inflationary leaving the extra £160k to go on running costs. I think that's a flawed hypothesis.

I would imagine that this unbudgeted windfall will go straight to repaying historic admin debt. I was under the impression that Mastpoint and others had first dibs on this type of income.

Hitch wrote:

I would imagine that this unbudgeted windfall will go straight to repaying historic admin debt. I was under the impression that Mastpoint and others had first dibs on this type of income.

Not if Mrs B has anything to do with it!

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

No I'm not.

It appears to me, "University-educated" * and all that I am (which I am not by the way - at least I don't think so... it's quite complicated - have never claimed to be and makes no odds to anything anyway) that arguing that the TV deal is not inflationary leaving the extra £160k to go on running costs. I think that's a flawed hypothesis.

I wasn't implying that you were uni educated, not that I'm suggesting that's a bad thing btw either I was just trying to simplify things, wondering if I had missed something? As for my hypothesis I don't think I made one, the facts are we all get a share of the pot, whether it is a fair share is a different debate I was just making the point that no one has advantage through this deal unless in a higher league and that advantage would be nullified by operating costs anyway (I believe that the CCC clubs are generally the most debt ridden comparable to turnover of any of us).
Personally I would rather the money was shared much more evenly, the FA are failing football as a sport generally with their obsession that the prem is the only league that counts. I would also like to see half the money go to a national academy/training structure country wide and this is where the money should be available to clubs like RRGYLE By signing and developing young talent. The prem could then pay us for developing said talent when they poach it. Grassroots football is being ignored in this country to the detriment of the national game and this needs to be reversed.
I'm not aiming all this at you either Franny I'm sure you and I would agree on most points outlined above?

Although we all get the same - £400k, the clubs with the smaller turnovers like Accrington or Exeter actually gain more in terms of increased percentage of turnover.

So in real terms, if there is any slight advantage from a flat rate increased payment, it would be for the Accys and Exeters of this League.

Iggy wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

No I'm not.

It appears to me, "University-educated" * and all that I am (which I am not by the way - at least I don't think so... it's quite complicated - have never claimed to be and makes no odds to anything anyway) that arguing that the TV deal is not inflationary leaving the extra £160k to go on running costs. I think that's a flawed hypothesis.

I wasn't implying that you were uni educated, not that I'm suggesting that's a bad thing btw either I was just trying to simplify things, wondering if I had missed something? As for my hypothesis I don't think I made one, the facts are we all get a share of the pot, whether it is a fair share is a different debate I was just making the point that no one has advantage through this deal unless in a higher league and that advantage would be nullified by operating costs anyway (I believe that the CCC clubs are generally the most debt ridden comparable to turnover of any of us).
Personally I would rather the money was shared much more evenly, the FA are failing football as a sport generally with their obsession that the prem is the only league that counts. I would also like to see half the money go to a national academy/training structure country wide and this is where the money should be available to clubs like RRGYLE By signing and developing young talent. The prem could then pay us for developing said talent when they poach it. Grassroots football is being ignored in this country to the detriment of the national game and this needs to be reversed.
I'm not aiming all this at you either Franny I'm sure you and I would agree on most points outlined above?

I agree with much of it but...

Mt brother made a similar point to the highlighted one to me the other day. He went so far as to suggest that a PL team took a lower league team "under its wing" and loaned them young players and so on. Its fair to say that we think very differently about things.

Anyway the more money they give us the more they will want back and, ultimately, Argyle would become Chelsea's B-side (to pick 2 teams at random) in all but name and I wouldn't want to see that happen - I'd prefer we stand or fall according to our own merits.

But yes the money should be redistributed throughout the game and more of it should find its way into the grassroots or else there will be no conveyor belt of English talent and the FA, which is supposed to run the England team, will have failed it completely.

And if they are getting £10m/game then giving us £400k/year as a "solidarity" payment doesn't cut it at all and yet we're expected to doff our caps and paise the good guv'nor's magnificent benelovence. Accuse me of being greedy if you like but I'd rather look 'em in the eye and say "is that it? are you taking the piss?" than express gratitude for the few crumbs that do come our way.

Iggy wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That depends on how you look at it.

No doubt the club owners at our level will relish getting a few more pounds. Every little helps after all.

Will it help Argyle? No.

There's various reasons why not. We'll get a few more quid but so too will our rivals so we gain  nothing compared to our competitors.

But we'll have a few more quid. Yes. But... Due to both the general inflationary effect of the money from the top down and due to the clubs lower down being able to bid a little more than they might have been able to before we won't actually be able to recruit better (i.e. more expensive) players.

I can't see how this will benefit us at all. Once the swings are offset against the roundabouts we'll probably be worse off.

Erm I know I never went to uni or anything but shorely we gain £160k? Whichever way you look at it we gain, maybe not massively but we do gain.

When the top clubs are paying £500k a week, an average Hull striker will be on £150k a week, that £160k extra a season will be loose change.

Just to reiterate, Sky and BT are paying an average of £11m for every single live televised league game. One of the main arguments for such obscene figures has been the trickle down effect into grass roots football. Not much of a trickle really is it?

Trickledown is abject nonsense.

But £11m/game. How can the TV companies recoup that sort of money? (I might have read that on here or somewhere else but wherever I read it it is a very good question!)

Even at £10/game ppv they'd need 1,100,000 subscribers. For every game.

Do they get global re-sale rights too?

Advertisers pay a lot to reach the desired demographic group.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Trickledown is abject nonsense.

But £11m/game. How can the TV companies recoup that sort of money? (I might have read that on here or somewhere else but wherever I read it it is a very good question!)

Even at £10/game ppv they'd need 1,100,000 subscribers. For every game.

Do they get global re-sale rights too?

11.8m Sky retail customers will pay more.

FT

ejh wrote:

Iggy wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

That depends on how you look at it.

No doubt the club owners at our level will relish getting a few more pounds. Every little helps after all.

Will it help Argyle? No.

There's various reasons why not. We'll get a few more quid but so too will our rivals so we gain  nothing compared to our competitors.

But we'll have a few more quid. Yes. But... Due to both the general inflationary effect of the money from the top down and due to the clubs lower down being able to bid a little more than they might have been able to before we won't actually be able to recruit better (i.e. more expensive) players.

I can't see how this will benefit us at all. Once the swings are offset against the roundabouts we'll probably be worse off.

Erm I know I never went to uni or anything but shorely we gain £160k? Whichever way you look at it we gain, maybe not massively but we do gain.

When the top clubs are paying £500k a week, an average Hull striker will be on £150k a week, that £160k extra a season will be loose change.

Just to reiterate, Sky and BT are paying an average of £11m for every single live televised league game. One of the main arguments for such obscene figures has been the trickle down effect into grass roots football. Not much of a trickle really is it?

Absolutely scandalous that those two pay such sums, and as for the minuscule trickle down, that is even worse.

The Premier Leaugue can be described as the beast and it will stay that way until those that pay to watch its produce get cheesed off with the brand. The Premier League only cares about itself and the spineless FA will do nothing to change that.

The lower leagues and grassroot football is the life and soul of the UK and to see it being treated in an awful way by the Premier League is just not cricket.

I did read an article sometime ago that was saying lower league and grassroot football were seeing an increase in attendences.

Why do people pay sky or BT is beyond me.with the faster internet and a good PC/laptop/tablet you can easily  stream any PL game. plus you can connect it to your TV.