Now this comes as no surprise

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


I mean it makes sense doesn’t it? Just a shame the PL is its own entity that tax revenue should trickle down into the FL all this does is widen the gap between PL and the champs.

They will have to do something to stave off the threat of Saudi
 
Berkshire Blade said:
I am not sure you know what corruption is.

Rules MIGHT be changed going forward if enough clubs agree to new rules


That's not corruption.
Click to expand...
Agreed

This corruption bollox is sounding a bit mardy now

The EPL is a business, as is every club in it

Imagine we got a super rich owner who decided he wanted to pump millions in and take us into the top 6? It’s his money, why can’t he spend it as he likes?

What people want is the football equivalent of price fixing, where everyone agrees on financial parameters they have to operate in, yet on a daily basis in life you will benefit from the exact opposite as utilities, grocery supplies, car dealers and all compete by investing/discounting to be top of their respective tree
 
The premier league clubs make the rules for the Premier league. They can do whatever they want. There is no integrity of the competition. Lots of clubs have bought success, Man Citeh, Chelsea, Blackburn, Newcastle, Leeds etc. Nearly all Premier league clubs have benefitted from sugar daddies. You can tell the ones that haven't, they are the yo yo clubs.
 
William Carey said:
I don’t see what the problem is with clubs spending however much they want as long as the owner can offord it. Why is there a limit?
Click to expand...
Because clubs are going bust and into administration, which is disgraceful for numerous reasons.

Besides that, loads of clubs are being mismanaged: owner comes in, spends a load to try get promotion, fails, then wants out, leaving huge wages and a bloated squad which no owner in their right mind would want to take on.

Etc.
 
AWetFlannel said:
Because clubs are going bust and into administration, which is disgraceful for numerous reasons.

Besides that, loads of clubs are being mismanaged: owner comes in, spends a load to try get promotion, fails, then wants out, leaving huge wages and a bloated squad which no owner in their right mind would want to take on.

Etc.
Click to expand...
If a new owner does come in to a club, spunk gazillions then leave and drop them in the cacky then sympathy from opposition fans will be in short supply. How many Everton or Forest fans protested when their owners were spending money left, right and centre back? None. There were no complaints. Now they’ve been caught, the fans say the PL is “corrupt” and it’s not fair they are getting points deducted.

Chelsea fans are moaning now too, despite the many years of hosing money at players. They’re only moaning because they aren’t up there challenging for the title. They’d be happy with the regime if they were winning trophies.

Clubs need to be run properly, according to their means, and if that means they can’t spend far in excess of what they earn then tough shit. This should also mean that the sportswashing projects of countries with piss-poor human rights records like Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia can’t just throw millions and millions of pounds at whatever player takes their fancy.

Football needs to be run so that clubs that stay within their means can still be competitive. It’s just a shame that won’t happen any more, because money talks. There will be more clubs up and down the pyramid that go into administration, and that even cease to exist. What it needs is for one of the big clubs to go bust before the rest will wake up to it. Man City and the likes don‘t care about clubs like Torquay going bust. Why should they? The “little“ clubs are an irrelevance unless they’ve got a player the “big” clubs want, and will take.

We need more robust overseeing of clubs to ensure another Torquay can’t happen. We won’t get it though, they’re all chasing that dream of a higher league, or a cup or title.
 
When I first started watching United there were no subs, and if a player was injured the player either limped along on the wing or you were down to ten men.
Spoiled the game that's for sure, so I have no augment with a couple of subs for that sort of things, but to be able to change more than half of your team for the last 10 minutes and then to even extend the amount of extra time played,!!!

If that's not cheating it must still be giving the richer clubs one hell of an advantage ......
 
Last edited:
LJBlade said:
Because it kills competition, which is bad for everybody in the long run.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean

But in what other walk of life do we not like competition - fuel prices, supermarkets, holiday companies?

As shorehamview said above, the only ones complaining of competition are the ones not winning…..

Promise you next season when we’re welcoming little old Plymouth and beating their £5k a week players with our £20k+ lads we won’t be sympathetic
 

steve26272 said:
I know what you mean

But in what other walk of life do we not like competition - fuel prices, supermarkets, holiday companies?

As shorehamview said above, the only ones complaining of competition are the ones not winning…..

Promise you next season when we’re welcoming little old Plymouth and beating their £5k a week players with our £20k+ lads we won’t be sympathetic
Click to expand...

We like competition in all walks of life. Why would we want to completely remove it from football?

Absolutely, the ones complaining of competition are the ones not winning but they’re not winning for the most part because of the amount of money that they’re able to spend.

If we allow the likes of Man City and Newcastle to spend whatever they like, buying up and stockpiling all of the best players, the list of those complaining will only get bigger.
 
steve26272 said:
I know what you mean

But in what other walk of life do we not like competition - fuel prices, supermarkets, holiday companies?

As shorehamview said above, the only ones complaining of competition are the ones not winning…..

Promise you next season when we’re welcoming little old Plymouth and beating their £5k a week players with our £20k+ lads we won’t be sympathetic
Click to expand...

Because sport is ever so slightly different from buying a loaf of bread.
 
William Carey said:
I don’t see what the problem is with clubs spending however much they want as long as the owner can offord it. Why is there a limit?
Click to expand...
Because it basically just makes it a closed shop for teams to ever compete in the premier league unless you have a country owning you to sports-wash their terrible human rights.
This is far from a football issue but high level sports shouldn’t just be about the money.
I think we need to start having a draft system like American sports and a wage cap on how much teams can spend on player. It would make it far more interesting to watch. The premier league has become very stale.
 
If this rule comes in, which probably it will because the big clubs want it, then I think that all premier league clubs should no longer be able to have academy sides, then all those players would go to football league teams, and if they're any good then the big teams can buy them giving lower teams much needed revenue, at the moment the big 6 hoover up all the talent, pay them astronomical wages and never play them, so if money is no object then the Premier League will be full of the best players in the world which could impact the national team.
For instances like us, a team getting promoted to the prem, then the rule would be that you can't recruit players to the academy whilever your in the Premier
 
steve26272 said:
I know what you mean

But in what other walk of life do we not like competition - fuel prices, supermarkets, holiday companies?

As shorehamview said above, the only ones complaining of competition are the ones not winning…..

Promise you next season when we’re welcoming little old Plymouth and beating their £5k a week players with our £20k+ lads we won’t be sympathetic
Click to expand...
Those companies have to break even, or limit their losses or they go bust.
PL clubs fall into two categories when spending big:
Rich owner funds it.
They rack up more and more debt.
That isn't a model that happens in any commercial business.
 
Bobby b said:
If this rule comes in, which probably it will because the big clubs want it, then I think that all premier league clubs should no longer be able to have academy sides, then all those players would go to football league teams, and if they're any good then the big teams can buy them giving lower teams much needed revenue, at the moment the big 6 hoover up all the talent, pay them astronomical wages and never play them, so if money is no object then the Premier League will be full of the best players in the world which could impact the national team.
For instances like us, a team getting promoted to the prem, then the rule would be that you can't recruit players to the academy whilever your in the Premier
Click to expand...

What happens if a Championship club who already has an academy gets promoted? Do they need to get rid of it?

I think what you’re really saying is you want a better system for lower league clubs to be able to hold on to their academy players. Again this comes down to money. If teams like Man City are continually allowed to poach young players by offering to buy houses for their parents then the best talent will always go to the highest spending teams and there will be very little others can do about it.
 
Greasy Chap Butty said:
Those companies have to break even, or limit their losses or they go bust.
PL clubs fall into two categories when spending big:
Rich owner funds it.
They rack up more and more debt.
That isn't a model that happens in any commercial business.
Click to expand...

Which is why I’ve always found the FFP rules to be completely stupid. The fact that any club is ‘allowed’ to lose money is madness. I get that, like with other commercial businesses, losses will happen but we’ve got a system whereby clubs are striving to only lose so many millions, rather than actually trying to avoid any losses at all.
 
Don’t recall reading anything about UEFA however. Isn’t FFP UEFA wide? All welll and good the PL choosing not to punish clubs but UEFA do in their competitions
 
LJBlade said:
Which is why I’ve always found the FFP rules to be completely stupid. The fact that any club is ‘allowed’ to lose money is madness. I get that, like with other commercial businesses, losses will happen but we’ve got a system whereby clubs are striving to only lose so many millions, rather than actually trying to avoid any losses at all.
Click to expand...
In which case it should be tightened to break even over a 3 year period.
 
LJBlade said:
Which is why I’ve always found the FFP rules to be completely stupid. The fact that any club is ‘allowed’ to lose money is madness. I get that, like with other commercial businesses, losses will happen but we’ve got a system whereby clubs are striving to only lose so many millions, rather than actually trying to avoid any losses at all.
Click to expand...
For now they are willing to lose but the trust fund that own Chelsea are in it to make money believe it or not!
 
Berkshire Blade said:
For now they are willing to lose but the trust fund that own Chelsea are in it to make money believe it or not!
Click to expand...
theathletic.com

Chelsea report £90m loss - what does it mean for PSR?

Chelsea have reported a pre-tax loss of £90.1million ($114.8m) in their accounts for the 12-month period ending on June 30, 2023. The loss, down from £121.4m in the previous financial year, raises fresh questions about Chelsea’s ability to remain compliant with the Premier League and UEFA’s...
theathletic.com theathletic.com

Seems unlikely.
How they are meeting ffp with losses of £156m, £121m and £90m in the last 3 years. When the limit is supposed to be £105m over three years??
 
Greasy Chap Butty said:
In which case it should be tightened to break even over a 3 year period.
Click to expand...

If it was up to me and I was going for drastic changes I’d make it that clubs couldn’t spend more than 80% of their income on the playing side and that couldn’t include input from the owners. The owners couldn’t take any money out and the other 20% should be spent on community projects.

I appreciate it wouldn’t work however as it would need other top leagues to do the same.

(It probably wouldn’t work for other reasons, which I’m happy to accept if anyone wants to point them out 🙂)
 

steve26272 said:
Agreed

This corruption bollox is sounding a bit mardy now

The EPL is a business, as is every club in it

Imagine we got a super rich owner who decided he wanted to pump millions in and take us into the top 6? It’s his money, why can’t he spend it as he likes?

What people want is the football equivalent of price fixing, where everyone agrees on financial parameters they have to operate in, yet on a daily basis in life you will benefit from the exact opposite as utilities, grocery supplies, car dealers and all compete by investing/discounting to be top of their respective tree
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, but that's rubbish. Sport isn't supposed to be an adjunct to Thatcherism - it's supposed to be a fair contest between two opponents - and the whole point of having divisions (in any sport) is to best ensure those teams are equally matched.

The open market is ruining the sport for everyone except the fans of the Big Six - and quite frankly - I don't care if English football isn't as glamorous as Saudi football - as long as we see a fair contest between teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom