http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...s-says-Anfield-MD-Ian-Ayre-article810461.html Liverpool have placed the issue of individual TV rights firmly back on the agenda, by insisting it is the only way to compete with Europe's top clubs. The Premier League managed to avert a bloody civil war when the TV rights were last up for debate, with clubs signing a collective agreement giving them equal shares of the revenue. But Anfield managing director Ian Ayre fears such a generous approach could eventually work against the interests of the English league, by offering a massive advantage to their European rivals. And he believes, no matter how controversial it will be, the future for globally powerful clubs like Liverpool and Manchester United is to plough their own furrow when it comes to foreign TV rights. "Maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain. There are so many things moving in that particular area," he insisted. "Is it right that international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? At some point we definitely feel there has to be some re-balance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs. "If Real Madrid or Barcelona or other big European clubs can truly realise their international media value potential, where does that leave Liverpool and Man United? If they just get bigger and generate more, then all the players will start drifting that way, won't they? "We'll just share ours because we'll all be nice to each other? But the whole phenomenon of the Premier League could be threatened. Will the Premier League bubble burst because we are sticking to this equal-sharing model? It's a real debate that has to happen." The TV rights issue is the most controversial debate facing top clubs, and the one that threatens to blow the Premier League apart. But Ayre openly wonders whether it is right that clubs with little or no global appeal benefit as much from overseas rights, as sides like United and Liverpool who have massive support across the world. "If you're a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton, and everyone gets that," he said. "Likewise, if you're a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you're in Kuala Lumpur, with respect, there isn't anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it's a very small number. "Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal. "So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say, 'well you've got to all be in it to make it happen'. "But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others."
As a Liverpool supporter I hope this is the way it goes that way. As football supporter it can only be bad for a competitive Premier League.
At the moment both cash from Uk rights and International rights to show matches are evenly spread out among clubs in PL. Ayre is saying international rights should not be like that as it's Liverpool and United those fans pay to watch so those clubs should get more.
The Int rights are sold in each country and the cash is split equally amount the clubs.Ayre is saying ti should be up to each club to sell the rights to there games overseas.
Guardian's version http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/11/liverpool-breakaway-tv-deal The deal that shares television's billions equally between Premier League clubs is facing its biggest threat to date after Liverpool announced they would lead a challenge for overseas TV rights to be sold on a club-by-club basis. Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, has insisted the break-up of the established broadcasting deal, worth £3.2bn in total to all Premier League clubs for 2010‑13, is "a debate that has to happen", with the Anfield club in favour of the Spanish model that allows Barcelona and Real Madrid to negotiate individual contracts that dwarf their domestic and European rivals. Since the Premier League's foundation in 1992 its success has been largely based on the principle of collective selling, where each club no matter how lowly can expect a fixed share of TV deals with "merit" awards for finishing positions as an add‑on. Changing this model would risk revolt from the smaller clubs who stand to lose most, and thus threatens the league's very structure. At present, the Premier League sells domestic and overseas broadcasting rights collectively and more than doubled international revenue in its last negotiations, from £625m for 2007‑10 to £1.4bn for 2010‑13. With the Premier League shown in 212 countries and having 98 broadcast partners around the world, it is expected the next deal will show a similar increase, with overseas rights potentially worth more than domestic for the first time. Ayre believes the Premier League's four biggest global draws – Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal – deserve an increased share from 2013, with overseas broadcasting having a greater influence on the Anfield club's financial future than a new stadium. "Personally I think the game-changer is going out and recognising our brand globally," said the Liverpool managing director. "Maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain. There are so many things moving in that particular area. "What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you're a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you're a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you're in Kuala Lumpur there isn't anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it's a very small number. Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal. "So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others. At some point we definitely feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs." It would require 14 of the Premier League's 20 members to vote in favour of a new commercial arrangement. Though Sir Alex Ferguson recently described the collective deal as "fair", albeit while insisting clubs deserved more from overseas rights, and La Liga's system has attracted widespread criticism, Ayre believes the status quo jeopardises the financial might of the Premier League. "If Real Madrid or Barcelona or other big European clubs have the opportunity to truly realise their international media value potential, where does that leave Liverpool and Manchester United? We'll just share ours because we'll all be nice to each other? The whole phenomenon of the Premier League could be threatened. If they just get bigger and bigger and they generate more and more, then all the players will start drifting that way and will the Premier League bubble burst because we are sticking to this equal-sharing model? It's a real debate that has to happen." Liverpool insist their radical proposals are limited to overseas broadcasting, although success on that front could set a precedent domestically in the long term, and the club plans to raise the issue at the next Premier League meeting. Ayre's frank admission comes almost one year on from Fenway Sports Group acquiring the club from Tom Hicks and George Gillett in the high court and, along with broadcasting revenue, another major financial decision to be resolved by the American owners remains whether to construct a new stadium or redevelop their current home, Anfield. Liverpool's managing director insists the club are pursuing "a parallel course" on both options, with planning regulations complicating the redevelopment of Anfield and the financial benefits of a new-build uncertain, although Ayre admits the latter option is only viable with a naming rights deal. "We have been in discussions here and in other parts of the world with a small group of people that we have narrowed down that we are targeting for naming rights. That is an absolute catalyst to building a new stadium. The economics just don't stack up without it. "When will the decision be made? It'll only be when we reach an answer with both. It's hard to put a time on it. If you put a deadline on the naming rights, then you start to marginalise the deal. We aren't desperate. We think we have an amazing proposition as one of the biggest clubs in the world. I don't recall any football club of this size with this international reach that's ever done a naming rights deal. It is quite unique in that sense. Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United haven't. Nobody in football has done this at this level. It's new ground and it will take what it takes." Ayre, along with the former Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton, ex-chief executive Christian Purslow and Fenway Sports Group, remains the subject of a £1bn lawsuit filed by Hicks and Gillett over the events surrounding their departure last October. "It's an unwanted and unwelcome distraction. That's their prerogative but we remain extremely confident that we did the right thing," he said. The Liverpool MD offered his resignation to John W Henry following FSG's victory in the high court, and admits the five-times European champions could have entered administration had Hicks and Gillett retained control. "Certainly the bank had the power to call in the debt and at the time there wasn't anyone ready to take on that debt. So I guess the answer to that [would Liverpool have gone into administration] is yes. It's hypothetical but based on where we were and based on the circumstances at the time that was a very real threat. That was the case in the final hours. That was one of the other routes we could have gone down."
So it would benefit us greatly then? I think its a good idea but I think somewhere along the lines this WILL get very messy.
It would benefit us MASSIVELY, we'd make sooooo much money from it, we'd be able to compete with anyone, and fairly too.
Liverpool seek TV breakaway from Premier League Tony Barrett 1 minute ago Liverpool have signalled their desire to break away from the rest of the Premier League and negotiate their own overseas TV rights deal. The club believe that they are not getting a fair deal from the collective bargaining model that shares the £1.4 billion, three-year contract evenly between all 20 top-flight sides, who each received £17.9 million last season. Liverpool argue that they would be able to negotiate a far more lucrative contract independently and, if they are successful, they could pave the way for other high-profile clubs, such as Manchester United, to follow suit. Smaller clubs will be dismayed by the plans, though, feeling that the end of collective bargaining will only widen the gap in wealth. Liverpool and United counter this by saying their prime motive is to stay competitive with the other leading clubs in Europe, such as Real Madrid and Barcelona, who are able to negotiate lucrative individual contracts for global TV rights. On top of that, Liverpool warn of the threat to the Premier League’s status as world football’s most profitable and popular league unless its biggest clubs are able to keep pace with the Spanish giants. Ian Ayre, the Liverpool managing director, said: “If Real Madrid or Barcelona or other big European clubs have the opportunity to truly realise their international media value, where does that leave Liverpool and Man United? We’ll just share ours because we’ll all be nice to each other? “But the whole phenomenon of the Premier League could be threatened. If they just get bigger and bigger and they generate more and more, then all the players will start drifting that way, won’t they, and will the Premier League bubble be burst because we are sticking to this equal-sharing model? It’s a real debate that has to happen.” The league’s international television rights deal expires at the end of the 2012-13 season and Ayre has questioned whether it should be renewed. A recent report by Sport+Markt estimated that the Premier League’s global fanbase is 1.46 billion strong — 70 per cent of the world’s estimated 2.08 billion football fans — and that the television audience for games has risen to 4.7 billion across 212 countries. But with Real and Barcelona having deals with Mediapro until at least 2012-13 that will contribute broadcasting revenues of, on average, approximately £136 million each season, Ayre fears that such dominance could come under threat. Ayre is happy to see the status quo maintained where domestic TV rights are concerned, readily conceding that take-up of the Sky package is not dependent on the popularity of particular clubs. But he insists the situation is different overseas given the massive following that Liverpool and United boast abroad, in Asia and the Far East especially. “Maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain,” he said. “There are so many things moving in that area. What is certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, if you’re a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton, and everyone gets that. “Likewise, if you’re a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you’re in Kuala Lumpur there isn’t anyone subscribing to Astro or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it’s a very small number. The large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal. So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs?” Liverpool are likely to raise the issue at the next Premier League meeting. For the present situation to be changed, the proposition would be voted on by the 20 clubs and would need a two-thirds majority — 14 clubs in favour — for any amendments to be implemented. At present there does not appear to be a groundswell of support for what would amount to a revolution. In a recent interview Mr. Ferguson claimed that “whatever we get [in TV revenue] is not enough”, but the United manager qualified his statement with an admission that “it is fair” that the proceeds are shared evenly. Ayre, though, believes that the present situation should be debated at least and while Ferguson may not be supportive, the Glazer family, who own United, could be natural allies given their determination to maximise the club’s revenue potential overseas.
This would totally destroy the premiership in my opinion.The lesser teams wouldnt have a chance, because the demand to watch the likes of wigan and Sunderland would be far less.Just look at Spain, Barca and Real are running away with the league every year.They are a step above the rest of the teams in the league, this is down to the fininical money they get from their tv rights deals. Yes its great for us as Liverpool fans and we could do so much with the money, But if this happens, it could spell the end for alot of Clubs in my opinion who rely totally on TV money and Parcahutte payments.
With respect FCUK the rest of the clubs , I hope they all crash and burn , I only care about LFC. It's their own fault for not been big enough.
As far as I aware the Spanish domestic TV revenue deal is benefiting the two big clubs in Spain not any international TV deal. That said the KO times in Spain have been varied a lot this season with early Saturday and Sunday games aimed at the Asian market. For anyone that does not think we are still big box office the TV picks (UK excluding Ireland 3pm) this season so far are Sky 12 + ESPN 2. No other club has been picked as many times so far this season. I would guess this is Ian Ayre testing the water here in a changing TV market.
I totally agree with Ayre and FSG on this, I personally think us and united should be getting more of the domestic money as Sky and ESPN get much more money in advertising when were on, but that's unlikely. But let's be very clear we are massive worldwide, and on a different level to anything in the league and should be getting the lions share. I know some people will say "what would shanks say" socialism etc, but that's all very well but football is big business these days and that type of attitude left us standing still in the 90's as united surged ahead financially
Your correct but all it takes is David Gill to take the same stance as Ayre and all bets are off, the premier league world wide is Liverpool and Manchester United
It doens't mean a cut for 14 teams. Top 6 will make more money, mid table clubs would earn around the same, its the bottom clubs will lose out. Us, Manure, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, Man City. Will all sign up. Then the next tier teams, all they have to do is sell for a couple of million, as shared money would be less anyway if the others mentioned dropped out of the league. The league needs the big teams. So Newcastle could get a few bob as well as Villa that brings us to 8 definites I reckon. Maybe something could be done, where 10 percent of TV earnings goes into a pot and is shared out, or used for Parachute payments. But I don't think it's as unfeasible as it sounds.
I'm not sure if you have been to Asia recently but from my experience there are only 4 teams visibly supported in Asia United Liverpool Chelsea Arsenal And Liverpool & united are miles ahead over there None of the others are even on the radar over there including spurs and city Same goes for america