You have to hand it to Michel Platini. When elected to the Uefa presidency the general thinking was that the successful ex-Juventus and France player, winner of the 1984 European Championship, would make the perfect person to remove all the bureaucracy, clumsiness and cosiness from European football's governing body. Uefa would no longer be about self interest and career administrators, now it would be about football and the fans.
How wrong we were. Not only has Platini confirmed to the archetype football administrator, seen throughout the English FA, Uefa, and most visibly through Fifa, the Frenchman has shown to be more cunning, conniving, and ambitious than anyone apart from Sepp Blatter.
The announcement that Euro 2020 would take place across the continent is meant to see 'the Euros coming to the fans'. Of course it is nothing of the sort. It is hard enough trying to work out where to see your country play when confined to one nation, where first or second in the group can send you in wildly different directions, but when it involves moving to different countries at such short notice, arranging travel, accommodation, or simply knowing what currency to have with you? It is a joke.
But that is no surprise. Uefa's appreciation of the fans is a joke, and the fans are the last thing Platini is thinking about. Not sure about that statement? Then why will Euro 2024 revert back to a host nation format?
No, Platini is only concerned with the people that matter - namely sponsors and member associations. Basically, the people who can get him up the career ladder and into the job he craves - Fifa president.
"It is perhaps a bit of a zany idea but it is a good idea. I just bring forward ideas and then national associations have their own meetings and workshops and 52 out of 53 said 'yes'."
It's my idea, but it's not my fault. Power without responsibility, oh how we would all crave that. Obviously 52 out of 53 FAs said yes, they are only thinking about themselves. 40 of those countries never stood a chance of hosting the Euros. 10 of them could not explain politically the merit of spending millions on stadiums and infrastructure they do not really need at a time of economic austerity. And England and Germany have just had the Olympics and a World Cup (and pissed off too many people in football and in politics).
The Platini plan all gives them a slice of a bigger pie. Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Slovenia, Wales, Scotland, Norway, all these countries can hold one or two group games, perhaps a knockout stage as well. Instead of either building colossus stadiums they cannot fill, these countries can use the one or two big stadia they do have and get in on some of the action. Naturally, the hotel rates, airline tickets, and food and drink prices will shoot up for about two days so the natives can jump on the 2020 bandwagon, but it is only those 'loyal' fans who will pay, so no worries.
The English FA has already proposed Wembley as the final venue (might as well), Serbia might look to get home advantage for one of their games should they qualify, and the only country to vote against those proposals? Why, that's the only country that actually wanted to host the bloody thing - Turkey.
The sponsors are pleased too. "We see a lot of potential...many different locations means being able to showcase our brand across the continent" said an Adidas spokesman, while Carslberg said it was "an interesting idea". So we can expect even bigger sponsorship deals, which means more money to the FAs, and more money to the men in suits.
With everyone except the Turks happy, and even then the dollar signs will soon put a smile on their faces, and sponsors privately lauding Platini, his run to the Fifa hotseat/throne looks very smooth. Vote for me, I've got so many ideas that you can vote on to make us loads of money! And if his candidacy fails? He can simply go back to Uefa and expect 52 votes out of 53, and another decade screwing the fans and pleasing the suits.
Showing posts with label Uefa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Uefa. Show all posts
Sunday, 9 December 2012
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Solving the Financial Mismanagement of Football
Leyton Orient have secured a 5th round replay against Arsenal. The cup run, including prize money, TV revenue and gate receipts will mean Russell Slade's team will be the only side in League One to make a profit. In a week when Plymouth Argyle are docked ten points for signalling intent to go into administration, how can we stop football going down the financial plug-hole?
Administration and debts are nothing new to the football league, and the latter plagues the Premier League. Everton revealed their net debts had increased £6.9million to £49million and they are a club that is hardly amongst the league's big buyers or payers. The Glazers continue to add debt to Manchester United even though they have increased commercial revenue. Liverpool still struggle even though they have new owners and far higher sponsorship deals. Martin O'Neill left Aston Villa as they attempted to balance the books, before giving up. Even though Sunderland received over £18million for Darren Bent they are still relying on the money of Ellis Short. If any club does make a profit it is usually small, and if it has been inflated by player sales then fans expect the money to be reinvested at the soonest possible opportunity.
The fact Leyton Orient have relied on a entertaining cup run (they were on the cusp of being knocked out by Droylsden in the second round) to turn a profit shows you the problems that are now endemic in the English game. How can clubs continue to trade when there is little to no chance of breaking even, never mind making money to invest in the future?
Uefa's Financial Fair Play may be on solution but the repercussions deserve their own discussion, and they will only effect the dozen teams that hope to qualify for Europe. Maybe the authorities hope the effects will trickle down the leagues but the case of Portsmouth going to the wall has not stopped spending or wages. Football refuses to learn the lessons of the past,
One answer consistently suggested is a wage cap. It works in Rugby League they say, although Wakefield Wildcats have shown it does not stop clubs going bankrupt. It works in Rugby Union they say, and while English clubs are on a firmer financial footing than their round ball playing cousins, the flow of talent to France with its laxer rules shows that a wage cap only in England will have a detrimental effect on the English game. With differing tax structures, image rights and legal issues it would be impossible to establish a Europe or Worldwide wage cap, and tying the cap as a percentage of a club's revenue will only help increase the gap between the big and the small.
Obviously, the expectation of a knight or Sheikh coming to the rescue is implausible, as Plymouth have found out with their useless owners. So we need a solution that not only helps the club, but the fans, the players, and HMRC.
More pressure has been applied by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs since they were removed from the list of preferred creditors, in effect removing the guarantee that they would receive 100% of the money owed to them when a club went into liquidation. The 'Football Family', made up of players and clubs, does receive 100% of the money will charities, local businesses and the like are offered pitiful amounts, often 15-25% of what they are actually owed, and often a millionth of the amount owed to clubs and players. Could the removal of the Football Family's protection prove the holy grail?
The idea is thus: clubs no longer pay transfer fees in installments. You can still have payments after so many games, or if you win a trophy, but the primary sum is paid up in one big lump sum. This way clubs cannot spend money they do not have in the bank. If the authorities stop clubs taking out loans to fund payments, like Leeds United did, and banks stop clubs spending when they are using their overdraft, transfer fees will reduce for 90% of clubs, and if a Man City does come in for your player you have that money upfront, ready to do what you want.
The downside of this will be that selling clubs will find their assets (players) are worth less, but then this can be the case anyway and to constantly rely on making profits on players to break even each season is a poor business plan.
Secondly, players will not sign for clubs in poor financial situations. Why sign a £60k a week contract if in six months time they cant afford to pay you, and you only get 20% of that wage? Maybe the first thousand pound can be protected for youth staff and lower league players, but why should millionaires be guaranteed their money when a club goes under? Do this and supply goes down, suddenly players cannot name their price, they may have to pick a lower wage at a financially secure club. Wages go down, costs go down, clubs save money. And we get the added bonus that charities, cake shops, other local businesses and charities and the British taxpayer get more of their money back if a club does go bankrupt.
Another area to clear up would be payments to agents. I think clubs should be banned from paying agents fees on transfer deals. Either the player pays them, or the clubs pays them an annual sum for being a scout. If they only get you one deal then that's the clubs choice, if they get them 400 they still get paid the same. And of course a scout cant be employed by another club or by a player. There does become an issue with how agents work around Europe - they have different roles and function under different rules in different countries - but the Premier League is such a big player it could enforce its own legislation without too much damage to the quality of the product.
Point deduction is a harsh penalty in terms of the fans and players who are not involved in the financial running of the club but equally it is unfair to allow clubs to spend beyond their means, get ahead of others, with the only penalty being the banning of club directors from the sport. Given some of the stick directors and owners get they might be glad of the get out clause, and if the club has battled its way to the top, is allowed to remove the majority of its debt and start again while staying at the top, it is imply unfair on the rest who play by the rules (or at least make a better fist of playing by the rules).
Debt and administration has become the disease of English football, as hooliganism used to be in the 70s and 80s. Clubs cannot continue to overspend and expect TV revenues and transfer money to go up and up and up. At some point there will be an end to it, the money will no longer increase as much as they expect. Until clubs get a grip and a helping hand from the governing bodies there is a real danger they will die. The only winner will be the last team standing, and by then there will be nothing worth playing for.
Administration and debts are nothing new to the football league, and the latter plagues the Premier League. Everton revealed their net debts had increased £6.9million to £49million and they are a club that is hardly amongst the league's big buyers or payers. The Glazers continue to add debt to Manchester United even though they have increased commercial revenue. Liverpool still struggle even though they have new owners and far higher sponsorship deals. Martin O'Neill left Aston Villa as they attempted to balance the books, before giving up. Even though Sunderland received over £18million for Darren Bent they are still relying on the money of Ellis Short. If any club does make a profit it is usually small, and if it has been inflated by player sales then fans expect the money to be reinvested at the soonest possible opportunity.
The fact Leyton Orient have relied on a entertaining cup run (they were on the cusp of being knocked out by Droylsden in the second round) to turn a profit shows you the problems that are now endemic in the English game. How can clubs continue to trade when there is little to no chance of breaking even, never mind making money to invest in the future?
Uefa's Financial Fair Play may be on solution but the repercussions deserve their own discussion, and they will only effect the dozen teams that hope to qualify for Europe. Maybe the authorities hope the effects will trickle down the leagues but the case of Portsmouth going to the wall has not stopped spending or wages. Football refuses to learn the lessons of the past,
One answer consistently suggested is a wage cap. It works in Rugby League they say, although Wakefield Wildcats have shown it does not stop clubs going bankrupt. It works in Rugby Union they say, and while English clubs are on a firmer financial footing than their round ball playing cousins, the flow of talent to France with its laxer rules shows that a wage cap only in England will have a detrimental effect on the English game. With differing tax structures, image rights and legal issues it would be impossible to establish a Europe or Worldwide wage cap, and tying the cap as a percentage of a club's revenue will only help increase the gap between the big and the small.
Obviously, the expectation of a knight or Sheikh coming to the rescue is implausible, as Plymouth have found out with their useless owners. So we need a solution that not only helps the club, but the fans, the players, and HMRC.
More pressure has been applied by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs since they were removed from the list of preferred creditors, in effect removing the guarantee that they would receive 100% of the money owed to them when a club went into liquidation. The 'Football Family', made up of players and clubs, does receive 100% of the money will charities, local businesses and the like are offered pitiful amounts, often 15-25% of what they are actually owed, and often a millionth of the amount owed to clubs and players. Could the removal of the Football Family's protection prove the holy grail?
The idea is thus: clubs no longer pay transfer fees in installments. You can still have payments after so many games, or if you win a trophy, but the primary sum is paid up in one big lump sum. This way clubs cannot spend money they do not have in the bank. If the authorities stop clubs taking out loans to fund payments, like Leeds United did, and banks stop clubs spending when they are using their overdraft, transfer fees will reduce for 90% of clubs, and if a Man City does come in for your player you have that money upfront, ready to do what you want.
The downside of this will be that selling clubs will find their assets (players) are worth less, but then this can be the case anyway and to constantly rely on making profits on players to break even each season is a poor business plan.
Secondly, players will not sign for clubs in poor financial situations. Why sign a £60k a week contract if in six months time they cant afford to pay you, and you only get 20% of that wage? Maybe the first thousand pound can be protected for youth staff and lower league players, but why should millionaires be guaranteed their money when a club goes under? Do this and supply goes down, suddenly players cannot name their price, they may have to pick a lower wage at a financially secure club. Wages go down, costs go down, clubs save money. And we get the added bonus that charities, cake shops, other local businesses and charities and the British taxpayer get more of their money back if a club does go bankrupt.
Another area to clear up would be payments to agents. I think clubs should be banned from paying agents fees on transfer deals. Either the player pays them, or the clubs pays them an annual sum for being a scout. If they only get you one deal then that's the clubs choice, if they get them 400 they still get paid the same. And of course a scout cant be employed by another club or by a player. There does become an issue with how agents work around Europe - they have different roles and function under different rules in different countries - but the Premier League is such a big player it could enforce its own legislation without too much damage to the quality of the product.
Point deduction is a harsh penalty in terms of the fans and players who are not involved in the financial running of the club but equally it is unfair to allow clubs to spend beyond their means, get ahead of others, with the only penalty being the banning of club directors from the sport. Given some of the stick directors and owners get they might be glad of the get out clause, and if the club has battled its way to the top, is allowed to remove the majority of its debt and start again while staying at the top, it is imply unfair on the rest who play by the rules (or at least make a better fist of playing by the rules).
Debt and administration has become the disease of English football, as hooliganism used to be in the 70s and 80s. Clubs cannot continue to overspend and expect TV revenues and transfer money to go up and up and up. At some point there will be an end to it, the money will no longer increase as much as they expect. Until clubs get a grip and a helping hand from the governing bodies there is a real danger they will die. The only winner will be the last team standing, and by then there will be nothing worth playing for.
Saturday, 19 February 2011
Solutions for the FA Cup
How do we save the F.A. Cup? It's a big question, and one that is recurring with each passing round of the competition. The Cup has a fantastic heritage but now the Premier League and, more importantly, the Champions League take precedent, what can be done to regain the status of the world's oldest cup competition? Here are some solutions, and my own personal view on them.
1. Money
Money makes the world go round. The massive sums available for playing in the Premier League make the competition far, far bigger and powerful than the Champions ship. The TV revenue helps buy the top talent in the world, which keeps interest high, which brings even more money and so on. The Champions League is an extension of this system. Playing in the Premier League is worth £40-80million, depending on different reports, while the Champions League can be another £40million plus. When you get at tops £5million for winning the FA cup, it is no surprise where the priorities lie.
So the obvious answer is to increase the prize money, especially in the latter stages. The problem here is the FA does not have that money lying around - any spare cash it has goes to service the debts - so it is easier said than done. And the longer the F.A. Cup suffers, the lower sponsorship and interest will be, and the less money it will generate.
Summary: Would certainly help, but not likely in the short term.
2. Scheduling
An apparent problem with the F.A. Cup is that it gets in the way. Games fill up the football calendar, you get fixture congestion, fatigue, and unless you are going all the way to Wembley it is a distraction a team could do without.
Personally I think the fatigue argument is nonsense, but if teams want to put weakened line-ups that is up to them (this is for any competition, not just the F.A. Cup). But managers bring the point up so we should analysis it.
The problem can be split in two: teams who have too many fixtures, especially when replays come into it, and teams who are knocked out who have no fixtures for weeks.
(i) Too many games
The F.A. Cup is given specific weekends when there are no Premier League fixtures - specifically the first and last weekend in January. Also, because of the short period between rounds, the fifth round features very few PL games - West Brom vs Wolves being the only one this weekend, for instance. Because fans and authorities need to be notified in good time before games can be reorganised, matches are piled up later on in the season. You cannot give just a week's notice, and sometimes games have to be organised again if one or both teams continue to advance in the competition.
The solution would be to keep PL games fixed, and move F.A cup games to free midweek or weekend slots (all bar the third round weekend, which I would keep). With the FA Cup final usually being the last game of the season, a week after the league finishes, you have time to fit in the games if there is a backlog. All PL games need to kick off at the same time on the final day for reasons of fair play. With the semis at Wembley there may be a need to cram in the games a little, but not as much as now.
Replays are also an issue. You could simply eradicate replays, and it is a sensible suggestion. First the endless replays were scrapped, then replays at the semi final stage, so why not go the whole way? The lack of interest at the Wigan - Bolton replay midweek shows that there can be overkill. Traditionalists may argue they should remain, but scheduling is so tight they become an unnecessary burden. I do not like having 4th round games happening on the same weekend as 5th round games.
And, as ever, there is the problem of the Champions League's decision to split the last 16 fixtures over four weeks, further adding to the fixture congestion. Some synchronicity between the domestic and European calendar would help. Sorting out international friendly dates would also help.
(ii) Not enough games!
Tottenham were humbled at Fulham 4-0 in the 4th round. As a result they find themselves with no game this weekend. Blackpool are out after losing at Southampton in round 3. Both teams have a rescheduled match to sort out due to the winter chill, but rather than help the travelling fans by arranging the game this weekend the tie is on Tuesday night!
Once again the lack of time between rounds and doubt over how far teams might go means precious weekends pass with no fixtures, while midweek is filled with long journeys and tough games.
Summary: A switch to midweek would solve a lot of scheduling problems, easing congestion. Can and should be done asap.
3. Fan Interest
Attendances and interest in the F.A. Cup has been on the wane. The 7500 at Wigan for last week's replay indicates there is an issue and the Cup can find it a struggle to get column inches when the PL and CL are around. The lack of interest is not as bad as some may say - Wigan's attendances have been pretty dire all season - but while the Premier League is ruled by money, how about we make the F.A. Cup the people's cup?
To start with, ticket prices could be tapped at a set level. Ticket prices in general are astronomical, and it is not just at the top. Prices at non-league clubs are criminal, and perhaps this could encourage a downward pressure on prices as a whole. I know its unlikely, but you never know.
Another option would be to encourage more children to attend. A set price of £5 for under 16s may be dismissed as a token gesture but if it gets more kids interested in the game, in the cup, and maybe their local team, then its all good. Might encourage a few more Dads to take their kids to the game rather than buy them that Xbox game.
The F.A. Cup final has pretty good ticket allocation compared to other events but even still it is a corporate love in. How about a few less tickets for the companies and a few more for the fans? Even a ballot for the neutral fans could be exciting, although it does risk taking tickets away from fans of the two competing clubs.
What about making every game available on TV? If we are going midweek we could have games Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday. In rounds 3 and 4 this would be tough given the number of ties but from the 5th round onwards this should be manageable. Even more interesting - make all the games available on free channels! A trial of showing live 3pm kick-offs could also be trialled.
Summary: More could be done to keep and raise interest. Ticket pricing may upset smaller teams looking for a payday, which is fair enough, but no reason for kids tickets to be free. More ties on TV on successive days may help. Certainly worth investigating.
4. Champions League place for the winner
Would certainly add a little more spice to the pot, but how many times has a team not already in the Top 4 won the cup? If there was a CL place on offer those teams are likely to take the cup more seriously, but others less so. Still, might give an opening to a team like Everton or Villa, who on their day can beat the top teams but lack consistency. Hell, on this season's results you could include Wolves!
Summary: Intriguing, but would a better solution be to make the Europa League more important? The PL wont give up a CL place anyway.
5. Seeding the top teams
Would the F.A. Cup be more interesting if Man Utd and Liverpool had been kept apart in the third round? Liverpool fans may say so, but the traditionalists would cry foul.
I'm with the traditionalists on this one - the random draw makes the F.A. Cup what it is. If we start fixing it so the top teams have an easier run we will just end up with a load or all-PL games with a scattering of Championship teams in there.
Summary: Would change the nature of the Cup. Not for me.
6. Top teams play away
Something that cups in Germany and France do is to have the top teams play away. This gives the minnows a better chance because they have the home support behind them and it does help produce upsets.
Of course, this does not help the randomness of the draw, plus the Police may be a little concerned about the big teams taking thousands of fans down to little grounds, for obvious reasons.
But my biggest concern apart from the romance of the cup being diminished is that the small clubs look forward to a big pay day when they travel to the Old Trafford's, Emirates and St James' Parks of the world. This is a major opportunity to make money that would be removed, and ultimately you have to question whether Crawley's chances of progression against Man Utd would be massively enhanced if they were playing at their ground rather than Old Trafford. What would the players prefer?
Summary: Infringes of the random nature of the cup, plus will it help the lower league teams financially? For every one team that benefits from home advantage and causes an upset, how many will lose and lose out on the money?
7. Get rid of the League Cup
Too much of a good thing? Does the League Cup remove some of the novelty from the F.A. Cup? Does it add to the fixture congestion? Other countries only have one cup and yet you could argue that there is even less interest in that one cup than either of ours.
In a way, the League Cup, with its short setup and early final has found a little niche to call its own. Its a quick route to a Wembley, a trophy, and Europe. One arguement is to move it forward so that, for the PL teams, it does not overlap the F.A. Cup. In my mind, that is something worth considering.
Summary: Do not dispense with the League Cup, but it could be moved to ease scheduling.
8. Other Ideas
- English/UK players only
- Limit on over 21/23yo players
- Play all games in one or two batches, making it a quick, intense competition
- Make F.A. Cup final first game of season instead of last (replacing the Charity Shield)
If you have any ideas add them in the comments section
1. Money
Money makes the world go round. The massive sums available for playing in the Premier League make the competition far, far bigger and powerful than the Champions ship. The TV revenue helps buy the top talent in the world, which keeps interest high, which brings even more money and so on. The Champions League is an extension of this system. Playing in the Premier League is worth £40-80million, depending on different reports, while the Champions League can be another £40million plus. When you get at tops £5million for winning the FA cup, it is no surprise where the priorities lie.
So the obvious answer is to increase the prize money, especially in the latter stages. The problem here is the FA does not have that money lying around - any spare cash it has goes to service the debts - so it is easier said than done. And the longer the F.A. Cup suffers, the lower sponsorship and interest will be, and the less money it will generate.
Summary: Would certainly help, but not likely in the short term.
2. Scheduling
An apparent problem with the F.A. Cup is that it gets in the way. Games fill up the football calendar, you get fixture congestion, fatigue, and unless you are going all the way to Wembley it is a distraction a team could do without.
Personally I think the fatigue argument is nonsense, but if teams want to put weakened line-ups that is up to them (this is for any competition, not just the F.A. Cup). But managers bring the point up so we should analysis it.
The problem can be split in two: teams who have too many fixtures, especially when replays come into it, and teams who are knocked out who have no fixtures for weeks.
(i) Too many games
The F.A. Cup is given specific weekends when there are no Premier League fixtures - specifically the first and last weekend in January. Also, because of the short period between rounds, the fifth round features very few PL games - West Brom vs Wolves being the only one this weekend, for instance. Because fans and authorities need to be notified in good time before games can be reorganised, matches are piled up later on in the season. You cannot give just a week's notice, and sometimes games have to be organised again if one or both teams continue to advance in the competition.
The solution would be to keep PL games fixed, and move F.A cup games to free midweek or weekend slots (all bar the third round weekend, which I would keep). With the FA Cup final usually being the last game of the season, a week after the league finishes, you have time to fit in the games if there is a backlog. All PL games need to kick off at the same time on the final day for reasons of fair play. With the semis at Wembley there may be a need to cram in the games a little, but not as much as now.
Replays are also an issue. You could simply eradicate replays, and it is a sensible suggestion. First the endless replays were scrapped, then replays at the semi final stage, so why not go the whole way? The lack of interest at the Wigan - Bolton replay midweek shows that there can be overkill. Traditionalists may argue they should remain, but scheduling is so tight they become an unnecessary burden. I do not like having 4th round games happening on the same weekend as 5th round games.
And, as ever, there is the problem of the Champions League's decision to split the last 16 fixtures over four weeks, further adding to the fixture congestion. Some synchronicity between the domestic and European calendar would help. Sorting out international friendly dates would also help.
(ii) Not enough games!
Tottenham were humbled at Fulham 4-0 in the 4th round. As a result they find themselves with no game this weekend. Blackpool are out after losing at Southampton in round 3. Both teams have a rescheduled match to sort out due to the winter chill, but rather than help the travelling fans by arranging the game this weekend the tie is on Tuesday night!
Once again the lack of time between rounds and doubt over how far teams might go means precious weekends pass with no fixtures, while midweek is filled with long journeys and tough games.
Summary: A switch to midweek would solve a lot of scheduling problems, easing congestion. Can and should be done asap.
3. Fan Interest
Attendances and interest in the F.A. Cup has been on the wane. The 7500 at Wigan for last week's replay indicates there is an issue and the Cup can find it a struggle to get column inches when the PL and CL are around. The lack of interest is not as bad as some may say - Wigan's attendances have been pretty dire all season - but while the Premier League is ruled by money, how about we make the F.A. Cup the people's cup?
To start with, ticket prices could be tapped at a set level. Ticket prices in general are astronomical, and it is not just at the top. Prices at non-league clubs are criminal, and perhaps this could encourage a downward pressure on prices as a whole. I know its unlikely, but you never know.
Another option would be to encourage more children to attend. A set price of £5 for under 16s may be dismissed as a token gesture but if it gets more kids interested in the game, in the cup, and maybe their local team, then its all good. Might encourage a few more Dads to take their kids to the game rather than buy them that Xbox game.
The F.A. Cup final has pretty good ticket allocation compared to other events but even still it is a corporate love in. How about a few less tickets for the companies and a few more for the fans? Even a ballot for the neutral fans could be exciting, although it does risk taking tickets away from fans of the two competing clubs.
What about making every game available on TV? If we are going midweek we could have games Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday. In rounds 3 and 4 this would be tough given the number of ties but from the 5th round onwards this should be manageable. Even more interesting - make all the games available on free channels! A trial of showing live 3pm kick-offs could also be trialled.
Summary: More could be done to keep and raise interest. Ticket pricing may upset smaller teams looking for a payday, which is fair enough, but no reason for kids tickets to be free. More ties on TV on successive days may help. Certainly worth investigating.
4. Champions League place for the winner
Would certainly add a little more spice to the pot, but how many times has a team not already in the Top 4 won the cup? If there was a CL place on offer those teams are likely to take the cup more seriously, but others less so. Still, might give an opening to a team like Everton or Villa, who on their day can beat the top teams but lack consistency. Hell, on this season's results you could include Wolves!
Summary: Intriguing, but would a better solution be to make the Europa League more important? The PL wont give up a CL place anyway.
5. Seeding the top teams
Would the F.A. Cup be more interesting if Man Utd and Liverpool had been kept apart in the third round? Liverpool fans may say so, but the traditionalists would cry foul.
I'm with the traditionalists on this one - the random draw makes the F.A. Cup what it is. If we start fixing it so the top teams have an easier run we will just end up with a load or all-PL games with a scattering of Championship teams in there.
Summary: Would change the nature of the Cup. Not for me.
6. Top teams play away
Something that cups in Germany and France do is to have the top teams play away. This gives the minnows a better chance because they have the home support behind them and it does help produce upsets.
Of course, this does not help the randomness of the draw, plus the Police may be a little concerned about the big teams taking thousands of fans down to little grounds, for obvious reasons.
But my biggest concern apart from the romance of the cup being diminished is that the small clubs look forward to a big pay day when they travel to the Old Trafford's, Emirates and St James' Parks of the world. This is a major opportunity to make money that would be removed, and ultimately you have to question whether Crawley's chances of progression against Man Utd would be massively enhanced if they were playing at their ground rather than Old Trafford. What would the players prefer?
Summary: Infringes of the random nature of the cup, plus will it help the lower league teams financially? For every one team that benefits from home advantage and causes an upset, how many will lose and lose out on the money?
7. Get rid of the League Cup
Too much of a good thing? Does the League Cup remove some of the novelty from the F.A. Cup? Does it add to the fixture congestion? Other countries only have one cup and yet you could argue that there is even less interest in that one cup than either of ours.
In a way, the League Cup, with its short setup and early final has found a little niche to call its own. Its a quick route to a Wembley, a trophy, and Europe. One arguement is to move it forward so that, for the PL teams, it does not overlap the F.A. Cup. In my mind, that is something worth considering.
Summary: Do not dispense with the League Cup, but it could be moved to ease scheduling.
8. Other Ideas
- English/UK players only
- Limit on over 21/23yo players
- Play all games in one or two batches, making it a quick, intense competition
- Make F.A. Cup final first game of season instead of last (replacing the Charity Shield)
If you have any ideas add them in the comments section
Friday, 18 February 2011
What The Hell Is A Booking Fee???
Time to grind some gears....with the latest price details for the Champions League at Wembley released, starting at £176, it got me wondering: what the hell is a booking fee??
I buy a ticket. It costs £150 - an insane and inflated price designed to get as much money as possible - and then they whack on a £26 (£36 if you are abroad) booking fee. Why not include the fee in the cost? Do they think we will see 150 quid and say 'that seems quite reasonable actually' but £176 would be a bridge too far??
It is not just Uefa of course, they are just the latest example. Tottenham (and everyone else) do it. The best is when they charge a booking fee even though you are picking up the tickets. Why not include the sodding thing in the price? Are they saying 'We are ripping you off, but only by this much! The extra cost isn't to do with us....'
It doesn't matter to us! We still have to pay it!!
Football is not alone, of course it isn't. Not just sport, but anywhere, there are always hidden costs that make a bargain actually more expensive than the other options. I'm getting sick and tired of it - I want the fee to be all inclusive. I want the bottom line. i do not want to know who gets what, or why I'm charged this bit or that, just tell me how much it costs me in total. How much I have to pay.
And at £176, Uefa can stick their ticket up their ass! If I got one (and Spurs were not in a final) I'd sell it to a tout and make some money. In fact, why don't Uefa do just that?? They would make a fortune.
I buy a ticket. It costs £150 - an insane and inflated price designed to get as much money as possible - and then they whack on a £26 (£36 if you are abroad) booking fee. Why not include the fee in the cost? Do they think we will see 150 quid and say 'that seems quite reasonable actually' but £176 would be a bridge too far??
It is not just Uefa of course, they are just the latest example. Tottenham (and everyone else) do it. The best is when they charge a booking fee even though you are picking up the tickets. Why not include the sodding thing in the price? Are they saying 'We are ripping you off, but only by this much! The extra cost isn't to do with us....'
It doesn't matter to us! We still have to pay it!!
Football is not alone, of course it isn't. Not just sport, but anywhere, there are always hidden costs that make a bargain actually more expensive than the other options. I'm getting sick and tired of it - I want the fee to be all inclusive. I want the bottom line. i do not want to know who gets what, or why I'm charged this bit or that, just tell me how much it costs me in total. How much I have to pay.
And at £176, Uefa can stick their ticket up their ass! If I got one (and Spurs were not in a final) I'd sell it to a tout and make some money. In fact, why don't Uefa do just that?? They would make a fortune.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)