Overseas TV Deal

Don't change it from 20 equal shares. The league is lopsided enough.

I don't see the relevance of this. On current form, we're going to be relegated this year.

If the 35% is based on league position then that's fair and will benefit teams that aspire to compete with the top 4; but if the Sky 6 get their way it will be a closed shop to them which would widen the gap between them and the rest and that can't be allowed to happen.

All tv revenues should be shared equally, apart from the element for actual appearances.

I see that no vote was taken the other day as Scudamore couldnt persuade enough clubs to join the top 6. So they are going to see if they can reach a compromise when they meet again in November. Now why Scudamore is siding with the top 6 I don't know he is supposed to be there representing all the clubs in the Premier League. A newspaper has produced a graph based on what would have happened if this policy had been in force last season. They said that Champions Chelsea would have got an extra £12.4 million and Sunderland who just survived the drop would have lost £12.4 from the overseas deal.

As others have said - keep it equal. I understand the motivations for this - it is capitalism, pure and simple. But league position is already, principally, based on spending power and wage bill. Characteristically the teams with the most spending in recent seasons, and biggest wages bills, finish highest. Distributing the money differently is just going to reinforce this inequality, and hinder attempts to catch the top 6. An argument could be made for if every team played on equal footing - but they don't and never will.

The league is lopsided enough, changing the overseas deal will make it more so. The top 6 can't claim that they are shown more around the world since most overseas broadcasters show ALL the games so every team is shown the same number of times.