Of the games already scheduled, from 4 August to 1 October 2017. Sheffield Wednesday will have already accumulated three home games and £300k into the bargain, before the rest of the league has even reached Halloween. Villa, appear twice at home and twice away, picking up a smart £240k. By comparison, Barnsley will appear at home once. Worth £100k. Read our latest post: Is Sky Sports Bad For The Championship?
Correction Sky money is loved by those who already bag greats chunks. The rest of us mean **** all to those who have it
The alternative would be practically zero coverage of our league though... and certainly not Barnsley. For all the ills of Sky Sports and the very unfair selections for live games, it's the only coverage we're likely to get of our league.
Depends what you mean by bad, really. Is it eventually going to price out all but the maddest of Saudi Princes? Probably. But honestly, if the club were to fold tomorrow, would you still not go and watch them in tenth tier or wherever we'd have to start from? I still would. I couldn't give a **** about the Premier League and "skill" (sidenote: anybody who uses the word "Tekkers" is a nobhead), I got just as much enjoyment out of our promotion from League One as I have from anything we've ever done. Even '97.
The imbalance of the spread of money is bad for the Championship, and the other 48 league clubs, the source being the greed of the Premier League, aided it has to be said by the FA back then. I'd have less issue with Sky and the PL if the money was shared more evenly through the 92. Coverage wise, it's decent, but once you sell out to a broadcaster, it's they who pull the strings - kick off times, same clubs appearing etc. Somewhat hypocritically I still have Sky Sports, aiding and abetting, but cannot remember when I last watched a live game on TV.
Well it would appear to have fked the Scottish game. Now I would expect the same to happen to the lower reaches of the English game in time. The Championship will only be spared if the premiership is increased to include the Championship where all the big money is .I.E. a Premiership 2. I do think this will happen but unfortunately League1 and 2 will be even more detatched from the league structure and to be relegated there could mean the end for some clubs. BTW I do not subscribe to televised football. To me this is ruining the game I love.
I don't necessarily think the money that each team recieve as standard is bad for the league, but there needs to be something in place to even out the amount of broadcast games. On another note, the Premiership teams should be worried about these newly branded channels Sky have launched. Now they can see exactly how many people subscribe just to watch Premier League football, and if they get a significant number or subscribers dropping the channel, then the league can say goodbye to the daft money of today ...
I think the op needs to get his facts right. The distribution of tv money in the EFL changed last year. You no longer get paid for each time you're on tv. It all goes into a pot and is divided equally. The correct way to do it. All sky does is inconvenience the proper people. The fans.
The ripple affect that parachute money brings is immense.....when you see boro spending £20+M on 2 strikers it makes our job of 'trying' to sign a good striker even harder!! Love Barnsley fc but at times hate modern day football
Not sure that was correct for last season. There is an equal share of the broadcasting revenue, but appearances on tv attract extra. The solidarity payment was around 4.3 million to each club, with the equal share of the tv deal just over 2.0 million. Clubs got an additionak 100k for each televised home game, with a supplementary 10k for away matches that are televised. Villa made an extra 520k from tv matches, 4 at home and 12 away.
Solidarity payments differ from appearance payments. The Birmingham Mail quoted Aston Villa's earnings for last season, as described in my original post. Check it out: http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/spo...ws/championship-tv-money-aston-villa-12969621
The extra payment for TV matches is there to offset the loss of gate receipts that will occur if a match is broadcast, as well as the disruption and extra costs the club will incur from having Sky knocking around the stadium... With that in mind, I think the payments are fair enough. Especially for clubs like Villa who I could believe can easily lose 5,000 off their attendance if a match was on TV...