Charlton Lead Revolt Over Share Of Tv Deal

[marshbags]

Courtesy of the Telegraph. co . uk.

Charlton lead revolt over share of TV deal

By David Bond

Last Updated: 8:33am GMT 21/03/2007

Quote:-

Premiership chairmen meet in London today to discuss radical new proposals for carving up their staggering new £2.7 billion television windfall.

Show me the money: Charlton chairman Richard Murray

Amid growing concern over falling crowds and the competitiveness of the league, some of the smaller clubs are calling for urgent changes to the way TV income is distributed.

The Daily Telegraph has learned that, in an effort to find a solution to the dispute, eight Premiership clubs met in Manchester on Monday, with the rest due to talk today. Relegation-threatened Charlton are leading the revolt, with club chairman Richard Murray recently writing to all the Premiership clubs outlining a set of proposals to help spread the new money more evenly and improve competition.

The south London club are confident they have a growing body of support, although they would eventually need 14 of the 20 chairmen to vote with them to get the distribution formula changed.

Any vote will be put off until next month at the earliest, but in a sign of how seriously the league are treating the issue, chief executive Richard Scudamore is understood to have tabled a number of new options for the TV split at the meeting in Manchester.

All Premiership clubs receive an equal share of 50 per cent of the current £1.1 billion domestic TV deal, the bulk of which is provided by a £1.024bn exclusive live rights deal with Sky which expires in the summer. A further 25 per cent is divided up according to where teams finish in the league and the final quarter depends on how many times a club appear on TV. Money from the sale of overseas rights is split up equally.

With the league's new rights package set to earn clubs a 60 per cent rise in TV revenue from next season, some chairmen believe changes must be made now to avoid a disastrous divide between the big clubs and the rest.

Although the league argue that the new deal will lead to the smallest differential yet between top and bottom, Scudamore has forecast that the winners of next year's title will net £50m, while the bottom club will receive £30m.According to figures for 2005-06, the difference between 20th-placed Sunderland and champions Chelsea was £13.6m.

The fear among the smaller clubs is that the growing inequality will be distorted further by the top clubs' regular participation in the lucrative Champions League.

Charlton are understood to be calling for a far larger percentage of the new TV deal to be shared out equally between the teams. This, they say, would reduce the gap created by the merit payments and the TV appearances fee, a far greater proportion of which are received by the bigger, more successful clubs.

Unquote.

We aren,t talking loose change here that,s for sure.

Wether they deserve it or not is debatable and i for one cannot believe how commercialism continues to ruin the sport and it,s original roots and it,s intentions.

marshbags

Edited March 21, 2007 by marshbags

[mrbojangles]

Wether they deserve it or not is debatable and i for one cannot believe how commercialism continues to ruin the sport and it,s original roots and it,s intentions.

Although i agree to a certain extent Marshy. i gotta admit that sky do lead the way in televising football and many other sports for that matter.

at the meeting in Manchester.

The "hub" of all major sports meetings

All Premiership clubs receive an equal share of 50 per cent of the current £1.1 billion domestic TV deal, the bulk of which is provided by a £1.024bn exclusive live rights deal with Sky which expires in the summer. A further 25 per cent is divided up according to where teams finish in the league and the final quarter depends on how many times a club appear on TV. Money from the sale of overseas rights is split up equally.

Personally i don't see much wrong with how it is split at the moment. The only contentious issue could be the money for what place you finish but i think there should be a difference. Golfers don't get the same prize money for finishing 20th or winning the comp.

[keddy]

Wether they deserve it or not is debatable and i for one cannot believe how commercialism continues to ruin the sport and it,s original roots and it,s intentions.

Although i agree to a certain extent Marshy. i gotta admit that sky do lead the way in televising football and many other sports for that matter.

at the meeting in Manchester.

The "hub" of all major sports meetings

All Premiership clubs receive an equal share of 50 per cent of the current £1.1 billion domestic TV deal, the bulk of which is provided by a £1.024bn exclusive live rights deal with Sky which expires in the summer. A further 25 per cent is divided up according to where teams finish in the league and the final quarter depends on how many times a club appear on TV. Money from the sale of overseas rights is split up equally.

Personally i don't see much wrong with how it is split at the moment. The only contentious issue could be the money for what place you finish but i think there should be a difference. Golfers don't get the same prize money for finishing 20th or winning the comp.

Yes, I agree broadly with the proposel. Maybe the best solution is for L'Arse, Mancs, 'pool and chelski to f### off and form a European league with the other corporations. I'm really beginning to hate modern football and will be canceling my UBC sub soon. Though if West Ham stay up I might think again

[marshbags]

Wether they deserve it or not is debatable and i for one cannot believe how commercialism continues to ruin the sport and it,s original roots and it,s intentions.

Although i agree to a certain extent Marshy. i gotta admit that sky do lead the way in televising football and many other sports for that matter.

at the meeting in Manchester.

The "hub" of all major sports meetings

All Premiership clubs receive an equal share of 50 per cent of the current £1.1 billion domestic TV deal, the bulk of which is provided by a £1.024bn exclusive live rights deal with Sky which expires in the summer. A further 25 per cent is divided up according to where teams finish in the league and the final quarter depends on how many times a club appear on TV. Money from the sale of overseas rights is split up equally.

Personally i don't see much wrong with how it is split at the moment. The only contentious issue could be the money for what place you finish but i think there should be a difference. Golfers don't get the same prize money for finishing 20th or winning the comp.

Yes, I agree broadly with the proposel. Maybe the best solution is for L'Arse, Mancs, 'pool and chelski to f### off and form a European league with the other corporations. I'm really beginning to hate modern football and will be canceling my UBC sub soon. Though if West Ham stay up I might think again

As a subscriber to all UBC programmes and having all the games they show.

I have long stopped watching them in full and do so because i am sick of what the game has come to represent along with all the phoney s*** attached to it, hate and aggression ect. ect.

That of course is my personal choice and what others choose to do is theirs.

What a load of gready, selfish B******* the players, managers and admin, ect .ect. have now become !!!!!!!!!!!!

When the players run to the supporters grabbing the crest on their shirts and indicating their love and loyalty to their respective clubs and the fans.

What a load of B****cks

This is truly sickening IMHO and an insult to them all.

marshbags

Edited March 22, 2007 by marshbags