TV money should be distributed far more evenly throughout the top 4 divisions than it is. This is small fry by comparison but I don't blame him for arguing for something which would benefit his club.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Side note - does it not make people shudder to think that someone representing us (Methven, who part of this twitter thread is about) would talk to smaller club owners in this way?Off on a rant again this morning
What do you expect? Methven is a complete cock.Side note - does it not make people shudder to think that someone representing us (Methven, who part of this twitter thread is about) would talk to smaller club owners in this way?
In this case , no. He is fighting our clubs corner in this one. Holt basically wants Sunderlands income to drop from 21% to about 1.5% of I follow income. Who is right is a decent debate but he is right to fight out corner on this one I think.Side note - does it not make people shudder to think that someone representing us (Methven, who part of this twitter thread is about) would talk to smaller club owners in this way?
Holt is absolute desperate to level the playing field as he knows they can’t compete which is fair enough. He’s absolutely thick as mince though. Why would we agree to a massive hit on income generated through our support to benefit other clubs that have deliberately tried to shaft us with the curtailing of the season and the vote on the salary cap.In this case , no. He is fighting our clubs corner in this one. Holt basically wants Sunderlands income to drop from 21% to about 1.5% of I follow income. Who is right is a decent debate but he is right to fight out corner on this one I think.
Makes good points that I agree with there.Off on a rant again this morning
There's that paragraph on the second page.
"If the proceeds were split equally as the collective TV deal is or, as with physical match day tickets, the home club got the income, my club would happily participate."
That to me sounds like the club selling the stream get the income.
I don't think there's anything wrong with requesting proceeds are split or given to the home team.
If visiting fans bring 4,000 to a game at Accrington, Accrington would get 100% of the revenue.So if visiting teams in his league brought 4K fans against their own fan base of 1500 you think this is a fair split of 50-50?
Or if their 50 bought the passes when playing away at Sunderland and we sold say 30k streaming passes you think it’s fair a 50-50 split?
The man has a club that are sandwiched between Blackburn and Burnley and have exhausted the fan base and there for his like a little jealous neighbour.
Horrible little fukker if you ask me.
Yup and rightly so. The likes of Southampton are needed to compete in the premier league just as much as Man Utd or Arsenal. Just because those teams have a much greater fan base shouldn't matter one bit.If visiting fans bring 4,000 to a game at Accrington, Accrington would get 100% of the revenue.
If visiting fans brought 0 fans but sold 4,000 streaming passes Accrington would get 0% of the revenue.
That's where I think he has a point.
As for a 50/50 split, that's pretty much how TV deals work, only it's split between however many teams it covers. For years the big clubs have wanted to negotiate their own deals and for years the Premier League has sold rights as a package to make sure all the teams that make up the league get a share.