Premier League 2017-2018

[Live in the Now]

Back to stealing then. I'm not going to pay for something I was already getting when paying my cable bill.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

NBC just pissed everyone off.

 

[maclean]

Fifty bucks is crazy. I pay 25 for my full satellite package. It's true I only get one PL game per time slot, but I've also got games from the Spanish, Italian, French, German, Dutch leagues on other channels as well.

 

[East Coast Bias]

You can't totally blame them though. This is every other American sports model.

You get nationally televised games, and if you want every game, you have to buy the season pass.

I highly doubt it impacts United/Arsenal/Liverpool games because those get the big numbers. If you're a Palace/Newcastle/Southampton fan? You're stuck

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Last year top 10 watched:

ManCity-4
Liverpool-3
Tottenham-3
ManU-2
Chelsea-2
Leicester-2
Arsenal-1

 

[phisherman]

You can't totally blame them though. This is every other American sports model.

You get nationally televised games, and if you want every game, you have to buy the season pass.

I highly doubt it impacts United/Arsenal/Liverpool games because those get the big numbers. If you're a Palace/Newcastle/Southampton fan? You're stuck

Beginning of the TV bubble.

NBC overpaid so they're trying to make up for it.

Just my opinion.

I'll still enjoy TSN and Sportsnet doing dual coverage.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Beginning of the TV bubble.

NBC overpaid so they're trying to make up for it.

Just my opinion.

I'll still enjoy TSN and Sportsnet doing dual coverage.

Oh I don't disagree.

And I'm not sure they have the following to pull this off. The NFL can do whatever the hell they want. EPL? Not so much.

I'm more surprised at the surprise I guess? This was always going to happen.

 

[bluesfan94]

Wait do they consider the overflow channels esquire/CNBC/USA or whatever?

Oh well, I didn't really use it online often.

 

[Burner Account]

Gouging fans of smaller teams.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Wait do they consider the overflow channels esquire/CNBC/USA or whatever?

Oh well, I didn't really use it online often.

No only ones that were on the overflow channels or online only.

Anything on cable will still be shown if you have cable.

 

[StatesideSensFan]

it is stupid, i dont get why they dont put it on EPL Goal Zone(yes, i know that is a rip off of the MLS package). I have Directv and i would pay for the package if it were like 99 bucks or something.

 

[njdevsfn95]

NUFC made their radio free (instead of part of NUFCTV package) starting last season. Hopefully that continues.

If not I still am not forking out $50. I'll follow via Twitter which I did many times because Newcastle only lost a couple of times when I did that and I will always go with what works.

 

[Live in the Now]

I'd pay $50 if I followed a smaller club. I assume about 25 games would be on there and it's worth 2 dollars a game. But considering Liverpool will be on there about 6 or 7 times (or less), it's back to stealing and I don't even feel a little bad about it.

 

[Edo]

And people wonder why English teams struggle to compete in Europe.

 

[bluesfan94]

And people wonder why English teams struggle to compete in Europe.

It's because of NBC's broadcasting decisions?

Anyway, given how often Arsenal is on, I probably won't shell out money. I also have FoxSports1 and BeIN, so I have plenty of soccer.

 

[Edo]

It's because of NBC's broadcasting decisions?

Anyway, given how often Arsenal is on, I probably won't shell out money. I also have FoxSports1 and BeIN, so I have plenty of soccer.

English teams will play 6-7 more games than their German/Spanish/French/Italian rivals by Dec 31st. They're consistently at disadvantage and somehow still picked on for not advancing further despite this huge handicap.

 

[Live in the Now]

They have more money than all of them. So no, it's not a handicap. They need to learn how to use it better.

 

[Edo]

They have more money than all of them. So no, it's not a handicap. They need to learn how to use it better.

That's ridiculous. No amount of depth will allow the English teams to rest their stars and draw them on an equal playing field to everybody else in Europe. It's arguably the deepest league to boot and the top teams aren't really able to walk through games like the big clubs in the other countries can.

I don't understand why people continue to trash their record in Europe while ignoring this. This isn't FIFA 17. Professional athletes get tired, and the ones on the English teams are clearly not in peak physical condition when the CL rolls around.

It's not an opinion. It's a fact.

 

[Havre]

They have more money than all of them. So no, it's not a handicap. They need to learn how to use it better.

Not exactly my favourite topic to discuss, but don't you find it odd that every single club for years and years are incapable of spending their money "better"?

So often I see people claiming that English clubs are "stupid" and not very well ran (similar to "learn how to use it better"). That might be some truth to that, but every single one of them? And every single one of them continue to be so regardless of who owns and manages them?

To me that is clearly not the full picture / answer / reason.

If it is the number of games or just lack of stability at the top - I'm not sure. Barcelona, RM, BM, Juventus etc. are basically guaranteed to be a top 3-4 club even when they have a bad season. That is not the same in England any longer. I don't think it is a coincidence that English clubs did better in the CL when you had more stability among the top 4.

 

[Evilo]

So, EPL teams play more until december and thus play less afterwards, including during the CL knockout stage....

Where's the handicap?

Monaco was the team in Europe (Top 5 leagues) with the most games and they reached the semis with a squad of teenagers. They had to play several prem. rounds before making the CL. EPL teams barely have prem. rounds.

So where's the handicap?

 

[Evilo]

Not exactly my favourite topic to discuss, but don't you find it odd that every single club for years and years are incapable of spending their money "better"?

So often I see people claiming that English clubs are "stupid" and not very well ran (similar to "learn how to use it better"). That might be some truth to that, but every single one of them? And every single one of them continue to be so regardless of who owns and manages them?

To me that is clearly not the full picture / answer / reason.

If it is the number of games or just lack of stability at the top - I'm not sure. Barcelona, RM, BM, Juventus etc. are basically guaranteed to be a top 3-4 club even when they have a bad season. That is not the same in England any longer. I don't think it is a coincidence that English clubs did better in the CL when you had more stability among the top 4.

Clearly it is, and one of the reasons why they spend badly is because they have too much money. When EPL teams go out and sign Jordan Ayew for 15M€ for crazy money it's stupid. When they signed Kante for half the fee, it is smart.
Plenty of teams have too much money and don't scout the players well enough.
Some EPL teams do their homework when it comes to scouting. For instance, Chelsea rarely makes huge mistakes when signing someone. Sometimes, youngsters (on loan) don't pan out, but they go and try to sign the best.
OTOH, Aston Villa spending 15M on Ayew is just perfectly ridiculous. Anyone with half a brain could tell you that. Anyone who's seen even ONE game of Ayew could tell you that. And I can't even imagine them mxiing up with his brother. They're supposed to be professionnal.

There's this thought still, in the EPL, that money and "glory" (that's how EPL views itself) will make the difference.
In the end, teams that invested smartly top the others. Leicester signed Kante, it was smart. Same with Mahrez. It paid off. That was enough to win the CL in a down year for mega teams who spent mega-millions on overrated players.

 

[bleedblue1223]

You can't totally blame them though. This is every other American sports model.

You get nationally televised games, and if you want every game, you have to buy the season pass.

I highly doubt it impacts United/Arsenal/Liverpool games because those get the big numbers. If you're a Palace/Newcastle/Southampton fan? You're stuck

Not really though. Every other American sports model is based here, so you get every local sports team in your basic cable package, without spending extra.

If NBC wants more money, that's fine, but make a $75-100 package for every single game, and a $25 package for 1 single team. Or something along those lines. What MLB does for their service aimed at fans living outside the local market of their team. I'd pay something for every Chelsea game, but not $50.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

That NBC subscription thing really pisses me off. I wasn't thinking of cord cutting yet, but I may now. Really screws anyone not following the top 6.

 

[Savant]

The ironic thing is that live sports is the only thing keeping many Americans from cutting cords.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The ironic thing is that live sports is the only thing keeping many Americans from cutting cords.

Sling TV or Playstation Vue is the best alternative for sports fans wanting to cut back.