Liverpool FC Forum

by **redspirit** » Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:38 pm

John Barnes' Granny wrote:Good point RedSpirit, but as I said, very bad if you support a smallish regional team.

I agree, and it would not be fair to exclude them from a super league because as I had mentioned, and based on how the leagues in America has evolved from restructuring its system, once parity is achieved, smallish teams can compete and the fans/supporters of smaller towns/small markets are so much more passionate than fans/supporters from big markets, that it brings in so much more excitement to the league.

Since money talks and bullsh*t walks...I'll sum it all up. The tv rights to the National Football League is US $17.2 Billion for 7 years from 1998-2005. The previous contract was for 3 years US $6 Billion. 2005 is right around the corner and you can be sure it will no be less than US$30 Billion. The revenue alone is distributed to the thirty teams in the league. With the money, state of the art 70-80000 seating all purpose/surface stadiums are popping up all over cities that I'd rather die before I live in.

Again, it's sad that small teams will get screwed, the demand to see top notch football on a weekly basis, once parity has achieved, will create the demand which would eventually lead to bigger and better things in all aspects involved in european football, in Europe and the rest of the world but not here in the US.

by **azriahmad** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:50 am

Stadiums, just like any other infrastructure, especially new ones should not be replicated as they can have multiple users. Thai is why I think that it is a good idea to have a ground share with Everton and make arrangements on the ownership/revenue split if they don't come up with a parity equity to part fund the project in view of their present financial situation (I hope I don't have to run for my life by saying this...).

It is one thing to say with pride that "we will never share the stadium" but it is another thing to have to suffer financially over a long period of time if the expected revenues from the new stadium project does not mees expectations and the club will have to pare their transfer budget to make sure the instalments on the repayment for the stadium project can be made. This is the financial reality. It makes much more sense to share a specialist infrastructure like this which cost tens and hunderds of millions than have each club in the same city build their own and have unnecessary replication of very specialist, single or at best dual purpose infrastructure.

Small and poor clubs? It is unfortunate that the way the world works is that people/fans arounf the globe want to see only the highest league matches. Thus, a lion's share of the funds generated goees to the clubs in the top flights. The samller teams get something back when they are able to sell their players to the top clubs. It is just the way things work. How are these tiny clubs are supposed to get access to top notch facilities in the newer stadiums? Work out a ground sharing scheme or ground use scheme with the bigger boys.

by **Shanti** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 6:47 am

Thai bidder is an example of a big force in football who never see football as a sport

by **kindaconfuzed** » Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:19 am

Redspirit

I'm trying to get me head around the UK using the American system and I have a number of problems.

First of all football is a world wide sport unlike (may I suggest baseball, ice hockey etc) and therefore the Uk isn't going to do anything that will affect it competing on a European and national level even if only for a short time.

The second is (and I maybe wrong here and you can (and will no doubt correct me and as I write this I realise it doesn't stack up)) but there is a lot more of a cultural involvement going back a generation or two for the fans.

Also the business and sport link seems stronger in the USA?

Liverpool FC Forum

A sport or a business

Who is online