Contract with Mediaset Group (1 Viewer)

[Dominic]

I am wishing for their revival. Realistically Palermo and Sampdoria have already filled their void, but they will never fully fill that void. Compare their sides now, to that of Lazio and Roma just a few years ago. The former's quality will never rise to that of the Lazio and Roma of old.
I know that Lazio and Roma got their with a certain amount of neglecting their respective budgets, though Palermo and Sampdoria would have to do the same to truly filled that void.

Like I said Palermo and Samp are just midtable teams, good midtable teams maybe, but midtable teams nonetheless.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Paolo Sosa]

Fiorentina can though

 

[Dominic]

Read my thoughts on Fiorentina in my first post on page 3.

 

[aressandro10]

this is bad.. we should do radical changes...

TV rights should be devided equally not only among seria A teams, but some proportion to lower leagues as well... a consistent proportion should go to facility and youth developement at grass root.

we should introduce gate sharing. gate colletion should be devide 60-40 or 70-40 among home and away fans.

salary cap. This will make all good players well distributed among the teams.

i am sorry there is no equivalent of American draft system in european football.
...................................................................................................................

Other than that, big teams can be allowed to find individial resources.. they would still earn tons from champoins league money, merchandising, marketing... just dont when it involve the league, dont forget there other teams competing to. it takes two teams to form a match. why only one team gather all the money?

 

[Desmond]

I am wishing for their revival.

I'm wishing for a return to the Seven Sisters myself, but at least for the next five years I don't think it's realistic enough to wish for anything more than the status quo. There is little to suggest otherwise; in fact it's highly possible they'll slide into mid-table mediocrity once their current crop of players retire/leave, they sure as hell don't have the money to replace them adequately, especially the likes of Totti, Oddo, Mancini etc. which are the few leading lights that separate them from the rest of the pack.

They can prolly only hope for a wealthy foreign investor to inject some funds as the amount of income they'll be getting will only decrease as the performances go downhill.

 

[Paolo Sosa]

Read my thoughts on Fiorentina in my first post on page 3.

ok i just read it

but i have some comments on it. i think that the top three completly deserve such a deal if u consider the trophies that they already won, not only in italy but around Euro. this trophies didn't came from such deals it came from hardwork starting from scratch. don't blame the club for being sucessful and have an image worth mill and others that were in seria B for god knows how many years and some of them most likely going back and asking to be paid like the big guns.

imagine that u r the owner of Mediaset, are u willing to pay Treviso the same money u pay to juve ? in trems of audiance how many Juve or milan or Inter fans around the world and how many Sampadoria fans are their. its all about the money they get back from such deals. they r not paying their money as sponsers from the championship they r paying to get the max audiance which means max advertiment and max money. how many audiance watch Milan-Juve match on tv compaired to Treviso-Seina ?

it's all about money my freind and it such clubs want more money they should start producing players that could keep them in Seria A first then challenge for Euro places. u don't expect a lazy employer to get a pay rise. and then they can ask for some extra money. u can't climb a mountain from one step. and these top three are high mountains in term of their image.

 

[Dominic]

I'm wishing for a return to the Seven Sisters myself, but at least for the next five years I don't think it's realistic enough to wish for anything more than the status quo. There is little to suggest otherwise; in fact it's highly possible they'll slide into mid-table mediocrity once their current crop of players retire/leave, they sure as hell don't have the money to replace them adequately, especially the likes of Totti, Oddo, Mancini etc. which are the few leading lights that separate them from the rest of the pack.

They can prolly only hope for a wealthy foreign investor to inject some funds as the amount of income they'll be getting will only decrease as the performances go downhill.

Right on every account, i'd say. Serie A currently has have 3 tops clubs, then fiorentina, a huge midtable, and last and also least in this case quite few minnows these days.

ok i just read it

but i have some comments on it. i think that the top three completly deserve such a deal if u consider the trophies that they already won, not only in italy but around Euro. this trophies didn't came from such deals it came from hardwork starting from scratch. don't blame the club for being sucessful and have an image worth mill and others that were in seria B for god knows how many years and some of them most likely going back and asking to be paid like the big guns.

It has nothing to do with wether or not they deserve it though. It's about saving Serie A, and deals like this mediaset deal will do the opposite i'm afraid.

imagine that u r the owner of Mediaset, are u willing to pay Treviso the same money u pay to juve ? in trems of audiance how many Juve or milan or Inter fans around the world and how many Sampadoria fans are their. its all about the money they get back from such deals. they r not paying their money as sponsers from the championship they r paying to get the max audiance which means max advertiment and max money. how many audiance watch Milan-Juve match on tv compaired to Treviso-Seina ?

This is exactly the problem. Juve, Milan etc will get more and more tv money and Treviso and Siena less and less. Thus I'd propose a collective deal for the tv-rights of Serie A. These differences need to be shortened.

it's all about money my freind and it such clubs want more money they should start producing players that could keep them in Seria A first then challenge for Euro places. u don't expect a lazy employer to get a pay rise. and then they can ask for some extra money. u can't climb a mountain from one step. and these top three are high mountains in term of their image.

How are they going to produce these players, if their income becomes less every year. While the income of Inter, Juve and Milan gets higher every year. They can't pay for quality players and are in no position to compete. You can't expect a employer to work with the tools he doesn't have.

 

[Paolo Sosa]

Right on every account, i'd say. Serie A currently has have 3 tops clubs, then fiorentina, a huge midtable, and last and also least in this case quite few minnows these days.






It has nothing to do with wether or not they deserve it though. It's about saving Serie A, and deals like this mediaset deal will do the opposite i'm afraid.



This is exactly the problem. Juve, Milan etc will get more and more tv money and Treviso and Siena less and less. Thus I'd propose a collective deal for the tv-rights of Serie A. These differences need to be shortened.



How are they going to produce these players, if their income becomes less every year. While the income of Inter, Juve and Milan gets higher every year. They can't pay for quality players and are in no position to compete. You can't expect a employer to work with the tools he doesn't have.

i know that u r concerned about seria A but stop for a min and think what will happen if a collective deal was imposed, the whole league level will fall. who do u think the BIGGEST loser in this equation ? yes it will be Juventus. Juve mainly depend on such deals to increase thier wealth in order to buy player and actually pay their salary ,unlike lazio or roma, from where r we gonna make up for this money that we lost, don't tell me from sponsership deals becuase it almost only cover the wages. the CL money? if we don't buy quality players i think it will be diffecualt to dream of higher stages in the CL, Porto and Monaco made it only for a year we are one of the biggest in europe we should make it every year.

think about it on the long run, will inter, milan or even fiorentina get effected ? i don't think so, all this teams have an open account for them but we have a limited budget. we already can't compete with other club in the economical point of view such as chealse or real madrid or barca, what do u think will happen if we lost such a deal ?

 

[venom]

Somewhat on topic -

Bayern In TV Money Bust-Up

Bayern Munich, the German champions, are once again embroiled in controversy over television money after Eintracht Frankfurt objected to the share of TV revenue demanded by Bayern chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge.

Rummenigge has suggested that Bayern and some of the other major Bundesliga clubs should be rewarded with a greater share of the newly-agreed €420 million a year contract that comes into effect next season.

However, Frankfurt boss Heribert Bruchhagen told Thursday's Bild that the German football league (DFL) was acting like a "Rummenigge commission" that bows to his demands. Rummenigge has since demanded an apology and threatened to take Bayern out of the new deal and into the arms of satellite channel Premiere unless one is received.

"Bayern has a big social heart," said the Bayern boss. "Otherwise we would not have stayed in the central television marketing rights agreement but would have sold our home matches directly. I only have to go over to Premiere boss Kofler. We'd get a multiple of what we're getting now. We could reckon with €100 million and we're going to consider doing that if Bruchhagen doesn't apologise."

Bruchhagen has refused and says: "The competitiveness in the Bundesliga is already endangered. The table is getting more and more boring all the time."

Bayern have won six of the last 10 Bundesliga titles, but Borussia Dortmund and Werder Bremen have both triumphed in recent years while Bayer Leverkusen and Schalke 04 have both lost championships on the final day.

taken from goal.com

So it's not just a concrete problem in Italy. Even that minor clubs protest I believe these contracts are the future eventually. National leagues will fade away and big clubs will create their own international (franchise) league. Well, maybe I'm just too pessimistic..

..the idea of salary cap does not sound that bad after all..

 

[- vOnAm -]

I don't agree with salary caps. The situation in Europe is that we DO have big teams who can generate money. But these teams have a long list of history and we shouldn't impose salary caps so that Big and small teams will be restricted to a certain level.

But I do agree for the good of league football that in terms of television rights, there should be a certain degree of sharing/package. Now it doesn't have to be 100% equal, we could still give the bigger teams more of the money like 5:1, it would still be a very good deal for the smaller clubs.

Althoug if we talk Juve, then ofcourse its better we take care of our own TV deals.

 

[Philipp00]

Selling TV-rights for all teams together would not be a good thing. Every team should sell their TV rights on their own and share 20% with all other clubs. the money would go to the clubs that have a bad TV-contract.
The TV-companies don`t give us so much money because of nothing. We have most fans and they can make more money with us than with any other team. we have more than 10 million fans in italy. treviso or ascoli or siena perhaps have less than half a million. It`s just fair that we get a lot of money but we should share some percent of it with the other clubs because a good and healthy seria A is also good for us.

 

[Dominic]

The rights should be sold collectively. Such a deal would still relatively benefit the bigger clubs.
This explains it all really:

The intention of the ‘rebel’ clubs is to create a rights distribution pie chart, designed to give specific weight to each club according to their broadcasting value so that, whilst ensuring no one club takes too large a slice of the financial pie, the more popular teams will nevertheless receive a larger proportion of revenue commensurate to their market value.

.

 

[isha00]

There are the fools (also known as "honest") and the smart ones.

The rights were sold collectively some years ago, but then the smaller clubs thought they had bigger chances selling each its own. Who was the one on the front line in that occasion? Zamparini, at the time Venezia's president, and a certain Sensi. They begged, striked and begged again, till the government changed the law.

Now Zamparini, that in the meanwhile left Venezia in bankruptcy, wants the things to return how they were before. How convenient.

The fact is that they wasted the money they got, when others (Juve, for example) were able to administrate them better. Roma/Lazio didn't fall beacuse they didn't get money from the TVs, but because that money made them lose their mind: they bought players they couldn't afford and failed to pay wages and taxes.

Speaking about taxes, is it fair that Juve always paid them and lost the scudetto to Lazio that didn't (and now has 10 years to pay them, with a discount of 10-20 millions €)? And how is it fair that Bologna (another one that always paid taxes and wages regularly) was relegated in favour of Parma (that didn't pay taxes and was financed by Parmalat, that stole billions for the wallets of the italian people)? Or that Lazio is still in SerieA when they had debt far bigger than the one that sent Napoli and Fiorentina in C?

Gazzoni (Bologna's owner) never complained about the TV rights. He talked about the fact that he had to renounce to certain players because he spent money for taxes, when other teams bought the same ones without paying what they had to to the State.

That money had to be used to create schools and streets, but instead they finished in Crespo's or Batistuta's wallets.

I think that, before talking about the tv rights, these are the things that have to be discussed. Or let's sell the rights collectively, but let's also tell Giraudo that only fools pay taxes.

That's similar to Sampdoria's and Palermo situation. Like I wrote in my earlier post, their respective rises are flattering due to the fall of former giants. They would have been midtable, if it weren't for the falls of these giants.

Chievo was able to beat the great teams even in 2001, when Roma was still Roma and Lazio was still Lazio. Although, as I said before, they wouldn't even have risen, if they had followed the basic rules.

 

[Dominic]

There are the fools (also known as "honest") and the smart ones.

The rights were sold collectively some years ago, but then the smaller clubs thought they had bigger chances selling each its own. Who was the one on the front line in that occasion? Zamparini, at the time Venezia's president, and a certain Sensi. They begged, striked and begged again, till the government changed the law.

Now Zamparini, that in the meanwhile left Venezia in bankruptcy, wants the things to return how they were before. How convenient.

The fact is that they wasted the money they got, when others (Juve, for example) were able to administrate them better. Roma/Lazio didn't fall beacuse they didn't get money from the TVs, but because that money made them lose their mind: they bought players they couldn't afford and failed to pay wages and taxes.


Speaking about taxes, is it fair that Juve always paid them and lost the scudetto to Lazio that didn't (and now has 10 years to pay them, with a discount of 10-20 millions €)? And how is it fair that Bologna (another one that always paid taxes and wages regularly) was relegated in favour of Parma (that didn't pay taxes and was financed by Parmalat, that stole billions for the wallets of the italian people)? Or that Lazio is still in SerieA when they had debt far bigger than the one that sent Napoli and Fiorentina in C?

Gazzoni (Bologna's owner) never complained about the TV rights. He talked about the fact that he had to renounce to certain players because he spent money for taxes, when other teams bought the same ones without paying what they had to to the State.

That money had to be used to create schools and streets, but instead they finished in Crespo's or Batistuta's wallets.

I think that, before talking about the tv rights, these are the things that have to be discussed. Or let's sell the rights collectively, but let's also tell Giraudo that only fools pay taxes.




Chievo was able to beat the great teams even in 2001, when Roma was still Roma and Lazio was still Lazio. Although, as I said before, they wouldn't even have risen, if they had followed the basic rules.

You make a very strong case Isha, you came up with some good points.

I know it's hypocritical of Zamparini, Roma, Lazio and others. Though is that really the point? It's not really about being fair either. I'd say the real issue is how the 'save' the league. I know i'm repeating myself, but not making these tv-deals a collective deal, Serie A will surely suffer.
Concerning the taxes etc it's needless to say though ofcourse, these differences between the funding of teams should be dealt with 'fairer'. Though it might be a bit naive, to say that the matter should be looked into. If it were that easy, it would've been taken care of.

Nevertheless the funding of players through taxes is something where a salary cap system could come in handy. Once again, the NBA is the perfect example of setting up a 'fair' league.

The 2001 Chievo side was an a whole different level the current Chievo side is.

All these backroom politics and tax-fraudes in Serie A are sadly nothing new though. Sadly it's a big part of 'our favourite' league and will be so for years to come. As long as the Berlusconi's, Sensi's etc. and dare I say the former Agnelli's play a part in it.

 

[isha00]

You make a very strong case Isha, you came up with some good points.

I know it's hypocritical of Zamparini, Roma, Lazio and others. Though is that really the point? It's not really about being fair either.

I talked about fairness, because they've said it's not "fair" now the rights are sold for the time being.

About the saving the league issue: I understand that a Serie A with only 3 competitive teams is not that appealing (not that in the other leagues there are much more ones). How Giraudo once said, the first step to save the league is to have rules that have to be applied and, since the football world has changed, to administrate the clubs like the firms they are. That's what Juventus did in 1994.

If SerieA became a healthy business world, more tycons would want to invest money in it and, in a different environment, the clubs would gain more than what they expect and it wouldn't be only from the TVs.

Giving some teams more money at the moment, would be like giving it to a drug addict suffering abstinence. It would only mean making the matter worse.

Putting a salary cap would probably help, but in the real world, where the firms produce softwares, chairs and cars, there is no such a thing.
Probably some presidents have forgotten that we are talking about millions euros worth rights, because the clubs are now considered firms, hence like firms they have to behave.

What is happening is dangerous, not only for Serie A, but for the whole Italy. It may sound crazy, but there are 149 Italian firms (normal ones) that are ready to follow Lotito's example, to avoid bankruptcy. This is only an example, but the firms will expect to be treated like the football ones do. In that case the one bankrupting will not be Roma or Lazio, but Italy (and I'm not talking about the NT).

So I think the first issue is to heal Serie A from its many diseases, before feeding it again.

The 2001 Chievo side was an a whole different level the current Chievo side is.

The 2001 Chievo side came from Serie B and was financed with TV rights divided as they are divided now. It demonstrates that creating a good team in a normal way is still possible.

 

[Dominic]

I talked about fairness, because they've said it's not "fair" now the rights are sold for the time being.

About the saving the league issue: I understand that a Serie A with only 3 competitive teams is not that appealing (not that in the other leagues there are much more ones). How Giraudo once said, the first step to save the league is to have rules that have to be applied and, since the football world has changed, to administrate the clubs like the firms they are. That's what Juventus did in 1994.

It would be a first step on a long road.

If SerieA became a healthy business world, more tycons would want to invest money in it and, in a different environment, the clubs would gain more than what they expect and it wouldn't be only from the TVs.

In essence all great ideas, though can you really see it being a healthy business world? With corruption looming in the forms of the Berlusconi's etc and money laundering of Italian football.

Giving some teams more money at the moment, would be like giving it to a drug addict suffering abstinence. It would only mean making the matter worse.

Sure, but aren't the drug addicts the Lazio's and Roma's of the league? These are the clubs that will benefit from free deals, as there are already deals in place for them similar to our Mediaset deal.

Putting a salary cap would probably help, but in the real world, where the firms produce softwares, chairs and cars, there is no such a thing.
Probably some presidents have forgotten that we are talking about millions euros worth rights, because the clubs are now considered firms, hence like firms they have to behave.

True, it would be very hard to actually implement a salary cap, without being bend around the rule.

What is happening is dangerous, not only for Serie A, but for the whole Italy. It may sound crazy, but there are 149 Italian firms (normal ones) that are ready to follow Lotito's example, to avoid bankruptcy. This is only an example, but the firms will expect to be treated like the football ones do. In that case the one bankrupting will not be Roma or Lazio, but Italy (and I'm not talking about the NT).

So I think the first issue is to heal Serie A from its many diseases, before feeding it again.

I'm not as informed as you are of the situation of these Italian firms. The problems you talk of even far acceed that of football.

The 2001 Chievo side came from Serie B and was financed with TV rights divided as they are divided now. It demonstrates that creating a good team in a normal way is still possible.

Yes I know. Ain't Chievo though kind of a case of 'the EDIT: Exception that proves the rule'? On the other hand, lately a lot of the recently promoted Serie B clubs do well in Serie A. With this year being an exception as clubs like Treviso and Ascoli have taken the places of Genoa and Torino; with these latter another case of the diseased.

 

[Paolo Sosa]

I talked about fairness, because they've said it's not "fair" now the rights are sold for the time being.

About the saving the league issue: I understand that a Serie A with only 3 competitive teams is not that appealing (not that in the other leagues there are much more ones). How Giraudo once said, the first step to save the league is to have rules that have to be applied and, since the football world has changed, to administrate the clubs like the firms they are. That's what Juventus did in 1994.

If SerieA became a healthy business world, more tycons would want to invest money in it and, in a different environment, the clubs would gain more than what they expect and it wouldn't be only from the TVs.

Giving some teams more money at the moment, would be like giving it to a drug addict suffering abstinence. It would only mean making the matter worse.

Putting a salary cap would probably help, but in the real world, where the firms produce softwares, chairs and cars, there is no such a thing.
Probably some presidents have forgotten that we are talking about millions euros worth rights, because the clubs are now considered firms, hence like firms they have to behave.

What is happening is dangerous, not only for Serie A, but for the whole Italy. It may sound crazy, but there are 149 Italian firms (normal ones) that are ready to follow Lotito's example, to avoid bankruptcy. This is only an example, but the firms will expect to be treated like the football ones do. In that case the one bankrupting will not be Roma or Lazio, but Italy (and I'm not talking about the NT).

So I think the first issue is to heal Serie A from its many diseases, before feeding it again.



The 2001 Chievo side came from Serie B and was financed with TV rights divided as they are divided now. It demonstrates that creating a good team in a normal way is still possible.

Gr8 post i completly agrees wil u

 

[isha00]

It would be a first step on a long road.

In essence all great ideas, though can you really see it being a healthy business world? With corruption looming in the forms of the Berlusconi's etc and money laundering of Italian football.

So, if there's corruption no one has to try to get the things, not clear, but at least accetable?
The football world is so ill, that healthy could mean with firms that spend less than what they gain.

Sure, but aren't the drug addicts the Lazio's and Roma's of the league? These are the clubs that will benefit from free deals, as there are already deals in place for them similar to our Mediaset deal.

Not only, there are also the Anconas, the Venezias, the Torinos.

True, it would be very hard to actually implement a salary cap, without being bend around the rule.

Here's the whole point: let's create rules respected by everyone. It's not an utopia.
I think that adding money to this fragile situation could only break it.

I'm not as informed as you are of the situation of these Italian firms.

It's pretty bad and football is worsening it. Getting it right should be the most important thing.

Yes I know. Ain't Chievo though kind of a case of 'the example that proves the rule'? On the other hand, lately a lot of the recently promoted Serie B clubs do well in Serie A. With this year being an exception as clubs like Treviso and Ascoli have taken the places of Genoa and Torino; with these latter another case of the diseased.

But is doing well in serie A also with the present organization I was talking about. There are teams that are able to do it. Chievo (and not only Chievo) is in SerieA doing well (except for last year). I think it's also because of their president that said "Football won't eat my Pandori" (Pandoro is a particular cake his firm produces). He meant that he wasn't going to do things he couldn't afford. He worked with his budget and came up with good trainers that are able to build a way of playing where even the worst ones (Legrottaglie) do their best.

Maybe they could come up with a sistem where only the healthy teams receive a percentage from the big ones.
Because if our Giraudo works hard to pay both players and taxes, I don't see why he should give up part of the money, to help others that didn't care about following the rules (not only the football ones, but also the ones of the market).

 

[Dominic]

So, if there's corruption no one has to try to get the things, not clear, but at least accetable?
The football world is so ill, that healthy could mean with firms that spend less than what they gain.
).

No.. I meant to say, can you actually see these ideas being realized?

Not only, there are also the Anconas, the Venezias, the Torinos.
).

Yes, wether you make tv deals free or collective, there will always be certain clubs who gain a (unjust) advantage from it. Yet, leaving these deals free I can see mainly Lazio and Roma benefiting from it. Also in the long run clubs like Chievo will suffer, despite them doing well with limited recourses so far. Their fanbase is relatively limited, I mean 'even' FC Verona has a larger supporters group.

Here's the whole point: let's create rules respected by everyone. It's not an utopia.
I think that adding money to this fragile situation could only break it.



It's pretty bad and football is worsening it. Getting it right should be the most important thing.

Indirectly you'd be adding additional money to (again) the Lazio's and Roma's, with free tv deals instead of the collective ones. Because 1. they get more from, for example mediaset, and 2. because the Chievo's get nothing.

But is doing well in serie A also with the present organization I was talking about. There are teams that are able to do it. Chievo (and not only Chievo) is in SerieA doing well (except for last year). I think it's also because of their president that said "Football won't eat my Pandori" (Pandoro is a particular cake his firm produces). He meant that he wasn't going to do things he couldn't afford. He worked with his budget and came up with good trainers that are able to build a way of playing where even the worst ones (Legrottaglie) do their best.

I still think their current good form, has mainly to do with the downfall of the former giants. Midtable teams that have taken over from giants that have also become midtable quality.

Maybe they could come up with a sistem where only the healthy teams receive a percentage from the big ones.
Because if our Giraudo works hard to pay both players and taxes, I don't see why he should give up part of the money, to help others that didn't care about following the rules (not only the football ones, but also the ones of the market).

How would you go about and determine which teams are 'healthy' and which are not?

Also slightly naive to think that Juve is 100% healthy.