Quote:
Originally Posted by Geddy Lee
And just to prove I'm not picking on Marty exclusively:
And what exactly is their fair share?
Really? I mean ok I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; I just thought this was common knowledge in the 'all knowing' world of SE. Don't go ranting about stuff that you don't have a clue about.
A lot less than they take just now is the answer. They negotiate TV money individually and take 50% between them.
Quote:
How are you going to enforce distribution of revenues?
By working collectively like most of the other big leagues. England is the perfect example where revenues are very fairly shared and the disparity between top and bottom is very small.
Quote:
Big markets generate big money, that is an undisputed fact and it's never going to change.
And the Spanish league is what, the best in the world?
Arguably. I'm not concerned with that argument. It's certainly top 2 and has proved its position this year with its 'nothing' clubs raping the best England has to offer.
So then you would expect la liga's income to correlate with this fact. But it doesn't. The French league earns more than la Liga. England's foreign TV revenue alone is more than Spain's entire income. The EPL model proves that working collectively is more powerful than trying to work like a monopoly (or duopoly as it were).
So that big market should really be bigger and obviously more benificial across the board, which would obviously create a more sustainable product.
Quote:
Perhaps European leagues could take a page out of the North American pro sport playbook and enforce salary caps for rosters (it's done wonders for increased parity in the NFL and NHL), but you won't change the ability of the well endowed clubs to establish and maintain better infrastructure, whether that be via superior coaching, facilities or scouting networks. The big clubs will still find the best talent and lure them to the most attractive markets.
Life isn't fair. It's professional sport, not communism.
That is true, but the extent to which it happens in Spain greatly exceeds any proven sustainable model, such as the EPL.
Perhaps football would be the perfect example of a system that would benefit from communism.
Quote:
Have fun without a significant TV deal, gate revenues and, well, any real interest in the product whatsoever. That includes interest from players, who'll flock towards League One faster than you can say "administration."
Professional Scottish football without both members of the OF would die.
The level of delusion in this thread is astronomical.
I doubt it.
You're deluded if you think that the OF are required to create interest in the Scottish League. I'm not talking about
insignificant TV money; I'm talking about fans through the turnstyles.
Why do you think attendances are down? People are bored with mid table mediocrity year after year, and OF fans are bored with playing Kilmarnock and St Johnstone etc because the competition is so weak.
You take that away and you're left with genuine competition between a load of more or less equal clubs, which I'm pretty sure would increase interest.
You also have the fact that, in every last town and village of Scotland,
most football fans support Rangers or Celtic through some kind of hereditary right, largely dictated by 'religion' (which hardly exists these days in a religious context). You remove the OF from the equation and those football fans will no doubt continue to be football fans; some will continue being armchair fans, and some of the ones who go to Ibrox or Parkhead will no doubt go and support their local team.
What of the next generation?
Well, in the absence of Rangers and Celtic, it seems pretty clear that local teams, with genuine aspirations of winning the league, will attract some of those youngsters, and wth or without TV revenues, the Scottish league will be a whole lot more exciting for the people who actually matter: the fans who attend matches.