#21

As an Arsenal Fan I would prefer a Swedish Music King as the owner. I like music and Sweden, however I am very concerned we would start getting halftime Spotify exclusive performances from Arsenal Fan Musicians like Mick Jagger and Dido. That would be awful, so maybe a double edged sword this one.

#22

(Some would argue not paying the people who provide the labour for their platform a decent renumeration is a human rights violation of sorts)

3 Likes
#23

Of course

I mean, literally everyone with a million pounds in the bank is a tory donor, it should be taken as a given by this stage

1 Like
#24

First thing I thought when I heard about this. It flows from the other non-music stuff they are doing - throwing money at podcasts and talk radio hosts, all that user data they mine - I’ve no idea what the long term business proposition is but it seems to be aiming to be much more a general content platform than a way to listen to albums.

1 Like
#25

Last week DAZN bought the domestic TV broadcasting rights to Italy’s Serie A, in an ugly bidding war with Sky Italia. The deal is reportedly worth $3 billion, for three seasons coverage of football. DAZN likes to advertise itself as “the Netflix of sport”.

DAZN is owned by Access Industries, a company controlled by Russian-born billionaire Len Blavatnik. Blavatnik has both UK and US citizenship.

#26

I think Northvolt is in a bucket of debt themselves aren’t they? They did a massive round of debt financing last year to add to what I assume is already at least part-debt-financing, so although I don’t know loads more of the details I’d be surprised if they got rich any time soon.

#27

I’ve heard a couple of people say that the next deal is going to be a negotiation rather than an auction as the epl are worried rights have peaked and they might get lowballed in auction

2 Likes
PL GW35 ft. Man Utd, Man Utd and Man Utd
#28

Maybe, but I have heard some insider char about … well I can’t really say

1 Like
#29

Is it?

I mean, the amount of money - and importantly data, that is ’lost’ through dodgy streams is huge

Clubs & TV companies manage to cash in thanks to sponsorships & advertising

But this is the old model, a streaming platform is far more valuable to advertisers as it can be laser guided after specific user groups and so on

If I weren’t so tired & didn’t have an 18th birthday party to arrange I’d be more detailed but if you could pull all of those hooky livestreamers over to a legit platform for sport - the motherload

#30

Absolutely, but the reason people go to dodgy streams is because it costs far more money than people are prepared to pay to get access to the games legally. I can’t see a way whether it was done in the current model or a club owned one where it costs any less to legally watch all the games than it does currently, and so dodgy streaming will continue.

I think @iamwiggy is right when he says it’s far easier to have a model for music where you’ve got pretty much everything for a tenner a month than one for football/sport at that price.

#31

I hear what you’re saying but the reason dodgy streams exist (partly) is because there is no single global rights mechanism, there are different rights holders in different territories and jurisdictions …and in some cases the law is even pretty grey

A global platform, with decent quality streaming, an interface & brand you can trust, free with ads or ad-free with premium. The clubs could make it happen (in the same way the majors made Spotify happen) but could even develop it with the club loyalty they have - tie it in to season ticket models or club 360 degree subscription packets, content customisation etc

I reckon it’s just a question of time

#32

I think the majors bought in after it already existed and was a threat.

If they had decided to compete with Spotify by creating their own streaming services, they would struggle compared to individual sports teams doing the same. The brand value of Man United is much bigger than the brand value of Warner Music Group. I think that’s why the labels agreed to go in to streaming together, but sports teams will not.

1 Like
#33

There’s an ongoing war between content platforms and content providers. Sport is the new front line.

In video streaming, the platforms (e.g. Netflix) initially fucked over the content providers’ business model (movie studios releasing to cinema and DVD/Bluray), so the content providers started restricting the content the platforms could stream. In response, the platforms (Netflix, Amazon) started making their own content. Recently the content providers fought back by building or acquiring their own platforms, the most successful recent example being Disney+.

Streaming platforms have started getting into sport, but they don’t own the content so they have to bid for rights alongside traditional broadcasters. Buying up clubs is a shift into owning the content as well as the platform, just like happened with video streaming.

In the short term, we’re going to end up with a highly fragmented system where you need several subscriptions to watch a decent percentage of a season of your favourite sport. But then there will be a consolidation phase (because that’s how capitalism works). And of course dodgy streams will continue to exist just like people used to tape records.

3 Likes
#34

Really hope Kroenke holds on

#35

Probably not the question being asked here, but I guess what has got Arsenal fans interested is the potential involvement of club legends, as well as a bit of just hoping that any sort of change triggers an upturn in performance.

I think that if you genuinely want to see change in the way football is structured, and are happy to see your club act unilaterally to set the right example, you are accepting that your club will be unable to effectively compete for silverware.

Again, bit unrelated - but how is that going for Schalke?

#36

Yeah, Schalke are mega fucked.

As an example I don’t buy into the 50+1 rule being a panacea for football’s current woes. On its own it doesn’t safeguard against financial ruin.

For the 2019/20 season, Championship clubs spent 107% of their revenue on wages, chasing the Premiership dream. This simply can’t continue. There needs to be some sort of independent financial regulation in the game because it’s evident that clubs can’t control their own finances, hence the reason clubs are constantly on the look out for the next billionaire/bat shit crazy idea like the ESL to bail them out.

#37

I don’t think anyone arguing for fan ownership is doing so from the position that it means a team will always be good at football and that mismanagement is impossible

2 Likes
#38

Daniel Ek = Naked Lie

Make u think :thinking:

2 Likes
#39

Yeah, I’m going to need paying for what would amount to hours of labour.