For those of you that weren't already aware, today's the day the Premier League releases it's fixtures for the 2009/10 season.
It's a day of great excitement but one that's somewhat stifled by the inability of blogsites like us to display any of those fixtures. We'd like to show you who your favourite team's playing in the opening weeks of the season, who they're playing over the Christmas period and who they're playing when the excrement hits the fan as the season's ending in May, but we can't.
We've already discussed the frustration we feel about the Premier League's strict copyright laws in the past, so let's not get too bogged down in all of that now. Instead, let us point you in the direction of the Premier League website where full details of all the important fixtures will be displayed for your viewing pleasure from 10:00 BST today.
(Oh and let's not forget the Football League fixtures too - they're avaiable via the Football League website...)
Showing posts with label Football League. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Football League. Show all posts
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Monday, 27 October 2008
Is Gartside right?
Before you answer with an emphatic "no", just bear with me for a few moments. Leaving aside that this is just a cry for attention from a chairman who is having his club's thunder stolen by the likes of Hull and Stoke, this is not the first suggestion of a Premier League closed shop. The Manchester City Chief Executive has spoken recently in favour of a 14 team league run on a franchise system similar to the US model.
Phil Gartside, for those who have not heard, thinks there should be a two-division Premier League of 36 teams in total. While there would be promotion and relegation between these divisions, crucially there would be no demotion or promotion to and from the Football League. Essentially the great rags to riches stories of clubs storming through the leagues to the summit of the game would be over. Great footballing stories of Wimbledon, Nottingham Forest, Luton Town, Oxford United and of course Hull City would be no more.
To many, if not all, football supporters this idea strikes at the core of what makes league football special. Promotion is aspirational, democratic, romantic and exciting. To take away a club's path to the top is to take away the supporter's dreams. The idea, quite simply is an anathema to the spirit of the game. What's more, it is cleary self-serving on Gartside's part. He is only looking out for his club's own interest probably realising that relegation could lead to financial ruin. His way means Premier League clubs are free to make as much money without fear of failure. Everybody wins except those not invited to the club. So far, so bad.
That said and after a bit more thought about it, I'm disinclined to dismiss the idea out of hand. My reasoning for this is the Patrick Collins piece opposing it in the Daily Mail. My philosophy in life is that if a Daily Mail columnist think something is bad its probably good. I call it the Sky Sports Principle.
So as unpalatable as it may be, lets put aside the negatives and focus on the positive aspects of the idea, just for the exercise.
Chairmen like Steve Gibson will stay involved in the game
Boro may not be the most glamorous of clubs but in Steve Gibson they have a diamond. A chairman who gives his manager time, patience, money and understanding. Their academy has produced a number of good English players and may one day be responsible for the next Wayne Rooney. If clubs like Boro go down, guys like Gibson leave the game.
Income security leads to better governance and secures clubs futures
Part of the reason why West Ham are in the fiscal mess they are in stems from two seasons ago when they bought a stack of players for high transfer fees and high wages in a desperate (and successful) attempt to avoid relegation. This season, Alan Curbishley ended up walking because he was having players sold from underneath him by a club frantically trying to lower the wage bill. With a minimum guarantee, clubs will be able to plan their finances and better manage crises when they arise.
Isolation protects the other leagues from collapse
In other words they're a bunch of money grabbing eejits and if they become consumed by their own greed and go belly up at least they're not taking the rest of the game with them right? The Premier League is as successful as its last TV deal. If the money dries up from its commercial partners things could go spectacularly wrong for the clubs, some of whom are said to be spending well above turnover and borrowing against the market value of their players. That's the sort of woolly thinking that did for Leeds United. Football League clubs may be protected from this because they are negotiating their own deals and working to different fiscal rules. This brings me nicely to...
The Football League can set their own economies of scale unburdened by the pressure to gain promotion
I reckon one of the biggest reasons why clubs suffer financially is because of their ambition to succeed. Luton and Oxford both enjoyed the glory years at the top and are both down in the mire. Why are ticket prices so high in the Championship? Partly because clubs need to pay high wages to players who are supposed to take them into the Premier League at the end of the season. The knock on effect of high wages and high ticket prices can be felt all the way down the Football League. If that avenue was not open to them then in theory, the need to break the bank and charge unrealistic prices to spectators is removed.
Look at Bradford, who dared to live the dream. Where are they now? League 2 but enjoying a mini-renaissance thanks in part to cutting their ticket prices. I rarely make it to Selhurst Park because it costs far more than I believe is justifiable for a Second Division football match. The last time I went was a mid-season game against Wolves. My friends and I sat in the Holmesdale Upper Tier and I swear we were the youngest people there. The youngest of our group was thirty-five.
I don't know about you but my club playing in the Premier League is no good to me if its going to cost me an arm and a leg to go to the games. Furthermore, I'm not sure how many 16-25 year olds can afford to regularly pay modern professional football admission prices.
There is a part of me that says if the Premier League want to go off and play with themselves, let them. If they make it a success, fair play to them. Meanwhile, the Football League, unburdened by the constant need to chase a dream, can concentrate on getting their own house in order, focus on winning their own leagues and adjust their budgets accordingly. They would not need to pay such high wages, could lower admission prices and open the game and re-engage with its community.
The other part of me hates the idea of having the prospect of glory taken away or at least finds it difficult to imagine any satisfaction in settling for second, third or fourth best. However, the more I think about it, the more good I can see in letting the Premier League leave with their big TV deals and multi-millionaire players while the rest of us go and watch a game at 3pm on a Saturday.
What do you think? Are you swayed by the passion of my argument or am I a dangerous fool who should have his Blogger account disabled? Leave a comment and let us know what you think.
Phil Gartside, for those who have not heard, thinks there should be a two-division Premier League of 36 teams in total. While there would be promotion and relegation between these divisions, crucially there would be no demotion or promotion to and from the Football League. Essentially the great rags to riches stories of clubs storming through the leagues to the summit of the game would be over. Great footballing stories of Wimbledon, Nottingham Forest, Luton Town, Oxford United and of course Hull City would be no more.
To many, if not all, football supporters this idea strikes at the core of what makes league football special. Promotion is aspirational, democratic, romantic and exciting. To take away a club's path to the top is to take away the supporter's dreams. The idea, quite simply is an anathema to the spirit of the game. What's more, it is cleary self-serving on Gartside's part. He is only looking out for his club's own interest probably realising that relegation could lead to financial ruin. His way means Premier League clubs are free to make as much money without fear of failure. Everybody wins except those not invited to the club. So far, so bad.
That said and after a bit more thought about it, I'm disinclined to dismiss the idea out of hand. My reasoning for this is the Patrick Collins piece opposing it in the Daily Mail. My philosophy in life is that if a Daily Mail columnist think something is bad its probably good. I call it the Sky Sports Principle.
So as unpalatable as it may be, lets put aside the negatives and focus on the positive aspects of the idea, just for the exercise.
Chairmen like Steve Gibson will stay involved in the game
Boro may not be the most glamorous of clubs but in Steve Gibson they have a diamond. A chairman who gives his manager time, patience, money and understanding. Their academy has produced a number of good English players and may one day be responsible for the next Wayne Rooney. If clubs like Boro go down, guys like Gibson leave the game.
Income security leads to better governance and secures clubs futures
Part of the reason why West Ham are in the fiscal mess they are in stems from two seasons ago when they bought a stack of players for high transfer fees and high wages in a desperate (and successful) attempt to avoid relegation. This season, Alan Curbishley ended up walking because he was having players sold from underneath him by a club frantically trying to lower the wage bill. With a minimum guarantee, clubs will be able to plan their finances and better manage crises when they arise.
Isolation protects the other leagues from collapse
In other words they're a bunch of money grabbing eejits and if they become consumed by their own greed and go belly up at least they're not taking the rest of the game with them right? The Premier League is as successful as its last TV deal. If the money dries up from its commercial partners things could go spectacularly wrong for the clubs, some of whom are said to be spending well above turnover and borrowing against the market value of their players. That's the sort of woolly thinking that did for Leeds United. Football League clubs may be protected from this because they are negotiating their own deals and working to different fiscal rules. This brings me nicely to...
The Football League can set their own economies of scale unburdened by the pressure to gain promotion
I reckon one of the biggest reasons why clubs suffer financially is because of their ambition to succeed. Luton and Oxford both enjoyed the glory years at the top and are both down in the mire. Why are ticket prices so high in the Championship? Partly because clubs need to pay high wages to players who are supposed to take them into the Premier League at the end of the season. The knock on effect of high wages and high ticket prices can be felt all the way down the Football League. If that avenue was not open to them then in theory, the need to break the bank and charge unrealistic prices to spectators is removed.
Look at Bradford, who dared to live the dream. Where are they now? League 2 but enjoying a mini-renaissance thanks in part to cutting their ticket prices. I rarely make it to Selhurst Park because it costs far more than I believe is justifiable for a Second Division football match. The last time I went was a mid-season game against Wolves. My friends and I sat in the Holmesdale Upper Tier and I swear we were the youngest people there. The youngest of our group was thirty-five.
I don't know about you but my club playing in the Premier League is no good to me if its going to cost me an arm and a leg to go to the games. Furthermore, I'm not sure how many 16-25 year olds can afford to regularly pay modern professional football admission prices.
There is a part of me that says if the Premier League want to go off and play with themselves, let them. If they make it a success, fair play to them. Meanwhile, the Football League, unburdened by the constant need to chase a dream, can concentrate on getting their own house in order, focus on winning their own leagues and adjust their budgets accordingly. They would not need to pay such high wages, could lower admission prices and open the game and re-engage with its community.
The other part of me hates the idea of having the prospect of glory taken away or at least finds it difficult to imagine any satisfaction in settling for second, third or fourth best. However, the more I think about it, the more good I can see in letting the Premier League leave with their big TV deals and multi-millionaire players while the rest of us go and watch a game at 3pm on a Saturday.
What do you think? Are you swayed by the passion of my argument or am I a dangerous fool who should have his Blogger account disabled? Leave a comment and let us know what you think.
Thursday, 8 November 2007
While I was away...
Many of you won't be aware but I've been feeling a little poorly of late, hence the lack of new articles going on recently. First of all, may I pass on my apologies for the temporary drop in service levels on our part, however I'm able to reassure you that my recent period of convalescence hasn't been a completely useless exercise.
While confined to my sick bed, I was at least able to view the goings-on in world football through my laptop-shaped porthole so that I can now report back to you as I begin the long road to recovery.
A couple of things to begin with, then. First of all, we have Sir Alex Ferguson, knight of the realm and all-round curmudgeonly messiah of Old Trafford. He's decided that it's about time he could choose from seven substitutes during a Premier League match rather than the current five. That, it would seem, would solve all his problems and help Man United retain their number 1 spot in England.
Excellent, except those of us wearing our far-sighted spectacles can discern right now that Mr Ferguson will only end up moaning again. That's because he'll need more players ready to send into battle alongside him on that draughty stadium bench that ought to be recuperating from injury in the comfort of their own home (or at the very least up in one of the executive boxes). There'll be more potential for even greater numbers of injured players because more will be available for each match.
So here's the rub: whatever happened to picking a starting XI that could win a match regardless of which subs might come on? If the subs are any good, why not pick them in the starting XI anyway?
Moving on, the BBC have made a shock announcement that from 2009/10, they'll be showing live games and highlights of Football League Championship matches, as well as those in the Carling Cup. My first reaction was 'why?' but this was easily explained by their failure to retain the rights to show England and FA Cup matches.
I was then filled with a feeling of optimism. Although Sky have done more than anyone by showing countless Football League games in all their exciting and fascinating glory over the last few years, the BBC will undoubtedly increase the potential audience and interest in the sub-Premier League levels for a number of reasons.
For a start, not everyone subscribes to Sky. The BBC's two main channels, on the other hand, are freely available and show the biggest football programme in UK TV history - Match of the Day. It was and always has been known as 'appointment-to-view' TV - the ability to make people sit down at the same times on the same days every week to watch a highly desirable programme. By getting fans of the Championship and Leagues 1 and 2 to watch a similar brand-leading show, a real sea-change in viewing habits could be on the cards.
The real question to be answered, though, is when would their programme(s) be shown? Saturday night is out of the question as that's when Match of the Day takes to the air. Sunday afternoons are out too - that's when Sky show their live games. Sunday nights are now where you'll find Match of the Day 2, the BBC's mopping-up exercise for the Premier League action that didn't happen on any given Saturday, so that leaves Sunday morning… which is when ITV pigeon-holed their weekly programme, and only seven people in the UK used to watch that.
Even then, we're talking about when to schedule a highlights programme. The BBC also has the rights to show ten live games too. I wonder when they'll be shown and on which channel?
All being well, we'll get the answer sometime in the next two to three years.
While confined to my sick bed, I was at least able to view the goings-on in world football through my laptop-shaped porthole so that I can now report back to you as I begin the long road to recovery.
A couple of things to begin with, then. First of all, we have Sir Alex Ferguson, knight of the realm and all-round curmudgeonly messiah of Old Trafford. He's decided that it's about time he could choose from seven substitutes during a Premier League match rather than the current five. That, it would seem, would solve all his problems and help Man United retain their number 1 spot in England.
Excellent, except those of us wearing our far-sighted spectacles can discern right now that Mr Ferguson will only end up moaning again. That's because he'll need more players ready to send into battle alongside him on that draughty stadium bench that ought to be recuperating from injury in the comfort of their own home (or at the very least up in one of the executive boxes). There'll be more potential for even greater numbers of injured players because more will be available for each match.
So here's the rub: whatever happened to picking a starting XI that could win a match regardless of which subs might come on? If the subs are any good, why not pick them in the starting XI anyway?
Moving on, the BBC have made a shock announcement that from 2009/10, they'll be showing live games and highlights of Football League Championship matches, as well as those in the Carling Cup. My first reaction was 'why?' but this was easily explained by their failure to retain the rights to show England and FA Cup matches.
I was then filled with a feeling of optimism. Although Sky have done more than anyone by showing countless Football League games in all their exciting and fascinating glory over the last few years, the BBC will undoubtedly increase the potential audience and interest in the sub-Premier League levels for a number of reasons.
For a start, not everyone subscribes to Sky. The BBC's two main channels, on the other hand, are freely available and show the biggest football programme in UK TV history - Match of the Day. It was and always has been known as 'appointment-to-view' TV - the ability to make people sit down at the same times on the same days every week to watch a highly desirable programme. By getting fans of the Championship and Leagues 1 and 2 to watch a similar brand-leading show, a real sea-change in viewing habits could be on the cards.
The real question to be answered, though, is when would their programme(s) be shown? Saturday night is out of the question as that's when Match of the Day takes to the air. Sunday afternoons are out too - that's when Sky show their live games. Sunday nights are now where you'll find Match of the Day 2, the BBC's mopping-up exercise for the Premier League action that didn't happen on any given Saturday, so that leaves Sunday morning… which is when ITV pigeon-holed their weekly programme, and only seven people in the UK used to watch that.
Even then, we're talking about when to schedule a highlights programme. The BBC also has the rights to show ten live games too. I wonder when they'll be shown and on which channel?
All being well, we'll get the answer sometime in the next two to three years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)