Premier League 2023/2024

[spursfan77]

Did I watch a different game to MOTD? Arsenal played some really nice stuff? I thought Man Utd completely stymied them in that 2nd half

I only saw the first half and at the time I thought Man Utd were poor and really negative but on reflection, except for conceding they played that first half perfectly. The best way to beat the scum is either batter them or sit back and not let them have the ball to quieten the crowd. They went for the latter and it worked. Arsenal were largely nullified.

 

[Tucker]

I only saw the first half and at the time I thought Man Utd were poor and really negative but on reflection, except for conceding they played that first half perfectly. The best way to beat the scum is either batter them or sit back and not let them have the ball to quieten the crowd. They went for the latter and it worked. Arsenal were largely nullified.

Yeah, I thought both teams were pretty pedestrian. They were both scared of losing the game I think. It needed that penalty being over turned to liven it up, and from then on it could really have gone either way. Garnacho was just offside, on another day he might have been just onside and United would have won the game. A draw would have been a fair result. Arsenal were incredibly lucky, I wonder how many formations Arteta played yesterday. Looked like one to me, but he’ll probably say it was 764 different formations.

 

[LSUY]

If the authorities are so set on keeping the blackout I wouldn't be surprised to see the PL move completely away from Saturday 3pm altogether. Let lower leagues keep it and play PL games at other times so everything gets shown in the UK.

It is completely senseless that all of these games are available everywhere in the world except the country of origin. It only encourages piracy.

Three possible downsides: 1) the Football League is going to want to protect its Saturday gate receipts. If the blackout goes how many FL sides can survive a hit to their income? 2) the PL might move away from Saturday 3pm kick offs 'to protect the Football League and the football pyramid' so more Sunday/midweek games therefore making it harder for fans and especially young fans to attend. 3) All those extra games probably won't be going to Sky, TNT and Amazon. The PL's overseas rights brings in £5.5bn while it's UK rights (from just selling to Sky, TNT, Amazon and the BBC) brings in £5bn. Surely the PL will want to add Apple or DAZN to their UK rights

Getting rid of the blackout sounds like a good idea on the surface but if it goes I have no doubt the PL and broadcasters will use it as an opportunity to screw over the fans.

Edit: Changed after Bluto and Tucker pointed out my mistake.

 

[Rocksuperstar]

BBC Sport are really rubbing one out over Rice this morning, huh?

 

[Tucker]

Two downsides to getting rid of the blackout: 1) a lot more midweek games therefore making it harder for fans and especially young fans to attend. Midweek and Sunday games tend to have lower attendances than Saturday games. 2) All those extra games won't be going to Sky, TNT and Amazon. The PL's overseas rights brings in £5.5bn while it's UK rights (from just selling to Sky, TNT, Amazon and the BBC) brings in £5bn. The PL will want to add Apple or DAZN to their UK rights.

Getting rid of the blackout sounds like a good idea on the surface but if it goes I have no doubt the PL and broadcasters will use it as an opportunity to screw over the fans.

Why would it mean more midweek games?

 

[LSUY]

Why would it mean more midweek games?

Because the Football League would demand the Saturday 3pm blackout remains as live televised PL matches would impact their attendances. The PL could move their matches to Sunday like they do for the last day of the season but just like midweek matches Sunday attendances tend to be lower than Saturdays.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Because the Football League would demand the Saturday 3pm blackout remains as live televised PL matches would impact their attendances. The PL could move their matches to Sunday like they do for the last day of the season but just like midweek matches Sunday attendances tend to be lower than Saturdays.

If you get rid of the blackout, how would it remain?

 

[ljinko888]

Surely the 3pm blackout affecting lower league attendances is debunked by the fact thousands of fans go all around the country on Tuesday and Wednesday nights to watch their teams in the Championship, League One and League Two at the same time as glamorous Champions League matches shown on TV.

 

[muppetman]

Found this the other day about the history and reasons for the blackout. Not sure if Grace is right, but the PL won't be keeping it for "the good of the game"!

The 3 pm blackout is a cartel move and you're all being had

On the English football's infamous Saturday TV rule, who it's for, and what it actually achieves

www.graceonfootball.com

 

[LSUY]

If you get rid of the blackout, how would it remain?

The PL would let it remain to save itself hassle. The FL kicks up a fuss, sections of the media gladly jump on a story to portray rich PL screwing over pauper FL, eventually the FA gets dragged in, no doubt a few politicians wade in with their opinions, the PL could overcome all that but why go through it when you can simply move your fixtures to a Sunday or midweek and release a BS statement that the move is in part due to addressing concerns raised by the FL

Surely the 3pm blackout attending lower league attendances is debunked by the fact thousands of fans go all around the country on Tuesday and Wednesday nights to watch their teams in the Championship, League One and League Two at the same time as glamorous Champions League matches shown on TV.

What are the averages of those midweek attendances though? Are they the same or lower than Saturday attendances? I'm guessing lower.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Two downsides to getting rid of the blackout: 1) a lot more midweek games

This is what generated the response - it can't be a downside to getting rid of the blackout - if you don't get rid of the blackout...

 

[spursfan77]

Yeah, I thought both teams were pretty pedestrian. They were both scared of losing the game I think. It needed that penalty being over turned to liven it up, and from then on it could really have gone either way. Garnacho was just offside, on another day he might have been just onside and United would have won the game. A draw would have been a fair result. Arsenal were incredibly lucky, I wonder how many formations Arteta played yesterday. Looked like one to me, but he’ll probably say it was 764 different formations.

I think they were just evening it up for not giving the pen.

 

[aliyid]

Three possible downsides: 1) the Football League is going to want to protect its Saturday gate receipts. If the blackout goes how many FL sides can survive a hit to their income? 2) the PL might move away from Saturday 3pm kick offs 'to protect the Football League and the football pyramid' so more Sunday/midweek games therefore making it harder for fans and especially young fans to attend. 3) All those extra games probably won't be going to Sky, TNT and Amazon. The PL's overseas rights brings in £5.5bn while it's UK rights (from just selling to Sky, TNT, Amazon and the BBC) brings in £5bn. Surely the PL will want to add Apple or DAZN to their UK rights

Getting rid of the blackout sounds like a good idea on the surface but if it goes I have no doubt the PL and broadcasters will use it as an opportunity to screw over the fans.

Edit: Changed after Bluto and Tucker pointed out my mistake.

I think the other side effect would be similar to what we saw during COVID when the blackout was lifted in that we'd start getting more staggered kick-off times in order to maximise the potential TV audience.

While this meant we were able to watch more games it also hit a saturation point where it was too much live football and you started to become aware of just how poor 80% of games actually are. When they're condensed down to MOTD style highlights, the quality of the league appears high but overexposure meant you couldn't hide the quality gaps and it reduced the mystical appeal of the #bestleagueintheworld

 

[TheHodFather]

If the authorities are so set on keeping the blackout I wouldn't be surprised to see the PL move completely away from Saturday 3pm altogether. Let lower leagues keep it and play PL games at other times so everything gets shown in the UK.

It is completely senseless that all of these games are available everywhere in the world except the country of origin. It only encourages piracy.

Yeah the blackout made sense in a world of 3/4 TV channels when there was about 1 game a week shown on the telly. But people can watch football 24/7 nowadays if they want to, and I just don't believe that showing premier league games at 3pm on a Saturday would have any real effect on lower division attendances anymore.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

I think the other side effect would be similar to what we saw during COVID when the blackout was lifted in that we'd start getting more staggered kick-off times in order to maximise the potential TV audience.

While this meant we were able to watch more games it also hit a saturation point where it was too much live football and you started to become aware of just how poor 80% of games actually are. When they're condensed down to MOTD style highlights, the quality of the league appears high but overexposure meant you couldn't hide the quality gaps and it reduced the mystical appeal of the #bestleagueintheworld

Maybe - but keep in mind, the rest of the world has no blackout and can generally watch all of the games already.

Yes - some are really bad - but it has not diminished the overall quality of the product.

 

[cwy21]

What are the averages of those midweek attendances though? Are they the same or lower than Saturday attendances? I'm guessing lower.

A better statistical comparison would be attendances during CL midweek and non CL midweek. I'm sure there is a drop off during midweek that is more like attributed to the usual midweek reasons.

 

[carmeldevil]

Spoiler: From the Athletic - UK gov't reaffirms commitment to independent regulator

The UK government has restated its intention to introduce an independent regulator for English football “as soon as possible” following a seven-month consultation process with clubs and the football authorities.

The renewed commitment is made clear in the consultation response published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on Tuesday to its February white paper, “A Sustainable Future – Reforming Club Football Governance”.

White papers are documents that set out proposals for future legislation and the road to this landmark intervention into the football industry started in 2019, when the government promised a fan-led review of the game’s governance in its manifesto.

That followed the shock caused by the expulsion of Bury FC from the English Football League (EFL) and the near-collapse of Bolton Wanderers, and the case for reform grew during 2020 and 2021 with the difficulties caused by the pandemic and the attempt by several leading clubs to form a breakaway European Super League.

In April 2021, former sports minister Tracey Crouch was asked to lead the review and she published her recommendations in November of that year, with the most significant being the creation of an independent regulator.



Now, almost two years and months of concerted lobbying later, the government has said it has listened to everybody – some wanting more regulation, others wanting none – and its mind is made up: independent regulation is coming.

“Our football clubs are the lifeblood of communities and the envy of leagues around the world,” said Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer. “We want to see them protected for fans now and in the future.

“Today we outline our plans to make sure the new regulator for football is independent, and remains true to its central mission to safeguard these community assets and help the beautiful game continue to grow in England.”

However, there are still several details to be decided.

For example, the 52-page consultation response says the government is “minded to set up a new body to house the regulator” but “all options remain under review” and it will continue to consult experts on the matter.

Where the regulator sits in the governance structure has been a bone of considerable contention, with some in the game saying the regulator should operate under the English Football Association’s umbrella, as an entirely separate body could become “politicised”.

But others have pointed out that the FA and the leagues have proven they are unable to govern the sport properly and the regulator must be a standalone body to be credible. The government would appear to agree with the latter opinion.

Another area where consensus has been lacking is on the regulator’s “scope” – in other words, how far down the pyramid it should regulate. The government’s view is that its remit should extend to the National League, the English game’s fifth tier, but no further, as its primary focus should be the “financial sustainability” of the professional game. Where the grassroots and women’s games sit in this is a little unclear but the government has said it will continue to consult with stakeholders.



It also dismissed concerns that the relevant international governing bodies, FIFA and UEFA, would view the creation of a regulator as undue government intervention into the sport, pointing out football and government already coexist and cooperate on a wide range of issues, here and abroad.

There was also a wide range of views expressed during the consultation on whether the regulator should take a standardised view of its work, with a set of blanket conditions, or a more bespoke approach that targets “poorly-run, financially distressed” clubs. Again, the government believes the latter approach is better, as regulation should be “flexible, agile and proportionate”.

And there were concerns shared about the risk of conflicts between the various organisations in charge of the game, duplication of effort and possible gaps where nobody is sure who should be in charge. “We agree” was the government’s succinct answer, pointing out that it had extensive experience of setting up independent regulatory authorities that work well within their industries, such as the Financial Conduct Authority, the Office of Communications (Ofcom) and the Pensions Regulator.

However, the biggest dispute still to be settled is football’s oldest argument: how the game should share its wealth.

The current financial distribution model is complicated and contentious, with the Premier League making a solidarity payment to the vast majority of clubs in the EFL that totals £120million, about 5 per cent of media income the Premier League shares with its clubs.

However, the top division also allocates more than £200m a season to about half a dozen recently relegated clubs in the form of parachute payments. It says it does this to ensure clubs promoted to the Premier League have the confidence to invest in new playing talent and help relegated clubs deal with the shock of relegation.

The EFL, on the other hand, says parachute payments have ruined the competitive balance of the Championship and force the other clubs to spend irrational and unsustainable amounts of money simply to keep up.

The EFL believes the need for parachute payments would disappear if the Premier League would agree to share 25 per cent of the leagues’ combined media income on a more equitable and meritocratic basis.



The Premier League, however, has said it is happy to send more money down the pyramid, although not as much as the EFL is asking for and only if the league agrees to tighter spending controls (which the EFL has repeatedly said it does not object to), but does not want to scrap parachute payments.

The government’s view is that, contrary to some Premier League voices, the current financial model is not working – there have been 60 cases of clubs going into administration since the Premier League’s creation in 1992, clubs across the spectrum continue to lose money every season and the clubs’ total debts are rising – but finding a solution should be left to the game, if at all possible.

If it is not, though, the government will give the regulator “a backstop system that involves targeted powers to intervene and facilitate an agreement on financial redistribution as and when necessary”.

This represents a significant win for the EFL and a defeat for those, largely within the Premier League, who do not think more of the top flight’s media-rights income should be used to support the rest of the pyramid.

The Premier League declined to comment on the government’s response to the consultation but it should be noted that all of its clubs have been fully engaged in the process and the league itself has been in regular contact with the relevant government officials.

It is also true that the government’s response makes it clear it does not want to jeopardise the global success of the Premier League, threaten inward investment in the game or overburden clubs with red tape.

EFL chair Rick Parry, on the other hand, has publicly welcomed the government’s latest position on independent regulation.

“As a consistent supporter of the independent regulator’s introduction, it is important that delivering financial sustainability for men’s English professional football will be its focus, and we now look forward to seeing legislation introduced to parliament,” he said.

Others were more circumspect in their reaction to the government response.

“It is great news that there will be a regulator for English football but, as ever, the devil is in the detail,” said Niall Couper, chief executive of Fair Game, a group that represents more than 30 English league and non-league clubs, including Premier League side Luton Town.

“The backstop powers need to be firmed up. A system where the game receives £3.19billion of TV revenue each year but clubs in League One can’t afford to pay their energy bills and the hiring of a kit manager in the National League is considered a luxury and, indeed, a club’s very survival is a daily concern, is clearly flawed.

“At the moment, for every £1,000 of TV revenue, £882 goes to Premier League clubs, £32.85 to most Championship sides and just 15p to National League South sides.

“The independent regulator has the potential to transform football for the better. But, in order to do so, it must have the necessary teeth to hold those it oversees to account.”

Of course, the biggest question mark of all, though, is when all this might happen. And on that the government has only said “legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows”.

The current government must call an election by January 2025 but some experts think it will come before that. So, this government has approximately a year to get it through parliament, which should not be difficult as the opposition parties are all strongly in favour of the proposal. In fact, if this government does not do it in this parliament, they propose to do it in the next one.

 

[JimmyG2]

Wonderful, touching article by Jason Stockwood
co-owner of Grimsby Town
on what football can mean and the part it plays in our lives


https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...l-club-is-an-anchor-a-conduit-for-connections

A flavour:
There is something uniquely powerful about football and the connection it creates with the people and the place I love. Those connections and relationships are the essence of life and, for me, represent the most positive use of our time.

From the Guardian

 

[TheChosenOne]

Saturday 16th

 

[spursfan77]

Thought this quite interesting, especially the zones of control action. Looks like Chelsea would be doing a lot better if they had a decent striker.

Premier League Stats: 2023-24 Season | The Analyst

The home for daily updating English Premier League stats for the 2023-24 season, both on a team and player level via Opta.

theanalyst.com

Ours looked very different last season. Nothing over the half way line!

https://i.redd.it/zones-of-control-in-2022-23-season-v0-uqajferpb83b1.jpg?s=160ea81d2838937f77dfd56f545b3e9509766525

www.reddit.com