Final round of matches in League One
Who came up with this ridiculous idea? This week-end sees the final round of matches in League One before the play-offs begin. The last game is always a bit like the first game - more people try to go along - especially away.
However, in their "wisdom" the EFL have staged all the matches on Sunday with a midday kick-off. So for example, fans of Bury have to get to Southend while Oldham supporters have to travel to AFC Wimbledon - both probably having to leave at 5am or 6am on a Sunday morning. There certainly won't be any train options.
What a nonsense by the Football League.
0
Comments
We all know full well why these games are kicking off when they do. Every season every Lg1 (and lg2 for that matter) receive significant amounts of money from Sky. Occasionally they have to give something in return. Sunday will be one of those occasions - as Lg2 will be the following week. A relative handful of supporters will travel by private car or club coach instead of train (if train was an option for a 3pm sat kick off).
If you don't want kick offs to be moved, don't take the Sky money. Simples.
Simple answer Andy, TV = £. Although TV are also clashing both L1 and L2 play-off semi-finals which seems pretty stupid.
Email or tweet sky and the EFL to show disappointment on this.
@DevC Don't agree at all. It's time to take back control.
Just like in another famous case of "taking back control", the economic costs of so doing would be very significant, the tangible benefits of so doing much more minor.
@DevC - As if League 2's cut of the TV money is anything more than crumbs from the table.
Regrettably, when you are starving, you need all the crumbs you can get!
I would have come down next Saturday if it had been at 3. But 5.30 is shit kick off on a Saturday. I would have to stay over, but can't do that.
From a different forum
"A number of people have asked/speculated here and on Facebook about what our share of any Div 2 prize fund might be. So I asked the Football League directly. I thank Jessica Crook at the League for this clarification below:
Thank you for your email.
In terms of overall financial distributions, all League clubs receive a share of what is called 'facility fees' which encompass broadcasting revenue, which for the current 15/16 season is as follows:
Facilities Fees (per club - '000)
Championship - £2.1m
League 1 - £680k
League 2 - £474k
Each club receives the same amount. There are no ladder payments depending on where clubs finish. However in addition, The Football League and Premier League have a separate agreement with regards to solidarity payments. Currently all clubs in The League therefore also receive a share of the solidarity money as follows:
Solidarity (per club - '000)
Championship - £2.3m
League 1 - £360k
League 2 - £240k"
No idea if this is accurate, but if it is quite a few crumbs. But the choice stands, Lg2 clubs don't have to take the money, if they do want it every now and then there is a price to pay.
Interesting figures. I didn't know we received this much. Quite a healthy sum.
In exchange for these revenues we accept a couple of changes to regular-season KO time/date and slightly awkward play-off KO times.
Seems a good deal to me.
No it's not. It's rubbish. It impacts on supporter enjoyment. It just gets worse the further up leagues you go.
Without it the club would die though.
But the bottom line is that the way TV revenue is so massively skewed towards the Premier League means that for all that income we are relatively poorer compared to other, bigger, clubs. For every pound we get they get 100 or whatever.
Not sure I see the relevance of that, Mindless.
The club wouldn't die without TV money, but it would skew things more towards those with bigger gates and those with rich sugar daddies. if those figures are correct, assuming there was a couple of years notice of their removal, almost certainly clubs like WWFC would have to go part time.
Maybe we're arguing at crossed purposes. Within one division, the TV money maybe mitigates the difference in gate receipts between clubs (say, Pompey compared to Morecambe) to some extent, but in the overall scheme of things, the biggest clubs benefit disproportionately from TV money to a degree that makes gate receipts seem almost irrelevant. Man Utd, Chelsea etc get hundreds of millions, we get a few hundred thousand. And so the gap continues to widen.
You could argue that without those thousands clubs like Wycombe MIGHT have to go part time, but the more TV money that pours in simply fuels wage rises that the biggest can afford but those at the bottom can't.
Of course Man U do much better than us in terms of TV money - but we are not and never will be competing with them - so frankly so what. Premier league wages are now obscene - frankly so what we are not competing for those players.
There is an academic argument whether TV money is good for football overall. It exists, its not going away whether lg2 clubs wish it to or not.
Lg2 cubs collectively do have a choice whether to walk away from their tv contract. That is the decision they can make. If they choose to, they "take back control" on fixture kick offs but if the figures above are correct lose £500k in income and In WWFC case almost certainly would have to go part time.
But the fact is, smaller clubs once did have the potential to compete - to "do a Wimbedon" (or a Forest or an Ipswich). Trying to chase that dream now means having a handy Russian billionaire around to pump stupid money into a club to reach the land of silly TV money.
always good to have Dev around to give the perspective of someone who never goes to games, and in a massively patronising fashion
don't ever change Dev
But that is the reality, Mindless. TV money is not going away. Lg2 clubs can't make that happen.
Lg2 clubs collectively do have the option of accepting or not accepting their share of the tv contract and whether or not to accept the cash in exchange for some fixtures being rearranged. There are consequences of taking the money and consequences of not.
I'll ignore Eric's rather silly "play the man" contribution. You will note that I have been careful not to express an opinion on whether we should take the money or not. oh and I at least have learnt something - I didn't realise TV money was quite that high.
While it benefits the richest of course it won't change; the poorest will have to accept their crumbs just to survive, I don't disagree. Doesn't make it right and sitting back saying `nothing I can do about it, that's just the way it is' is pathetically defeatist.
Quick question
How do I opt out of the Sky money as I don't want the kick off changed. Sounds simple from this thread so should be an easy process. Just can't find it on Google.
Its your judgement to make whether or not £500k per annum (750k if you include the solidarity payment) is "crumbs". Feels like quite a lot to me (c 25% of all income)
Our fixtures only get changed occasionally during the season if the Lg2 clubs choose to accept the TV contract for which they get £500k per annum. If they don't want to change the fixtures, we don't get the £500k. Which would you do?
Either way, I am pretty confident the premier league teams will not agree to tear their contract up even if we ask them to very nicely.
The amount of money we get from tv is relative. As teams in the leagues above get a bigger share, in real terms we are poorer as we are less able to compete with transfers, wages etc.
So it is bad for WWFC and the fans get screwed over at the same time.
I'm not sure the comparison of what we get with what teams in higher leagues get is the correct one for the purposes of this conversation. Is it not correct to compare what we get with what we would get if there was a different TV deal or no TV deal?
@LX1 - exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. For the sake of argument, for every pound we get clubs in L1 get £5, Championship clubs get £20 and Prem clubs get £100, so within the footballing economy we are poorer as our pound is worth less. Certainly the money is great so far as its buying power beyond football is concerned - buying in catering supplies, paying office staff, petrol for the team bus etc, but within football itself (especially player wages) it's made us poorer compared to clubs higher up, particularly in the top 2 divisions.
Pity none of the Class of 92 are involved in the club or we'd have had documentary money coming in from the BBC!
With respect Mindless and LX you are conflating two separate issues
1) should TV money be in football at all - out of WWFC control
2) should Lg2 clubs sign up for a TV contract - in WWFC control in partnership with other Lg2 clubs.
You can argue if you wish that it would have been better if premier teams had never taken Sky's cash. Well they have and they are not going to stop.
Within that context, would you advocate the lg2 teams choosing not to do a deal with Sky and walking away from £500k annually at the cost of occasional fixture disruption?
And with respect Dev, you're missing the point we've both made completely.