Why would Premier League punish Forest for being big club again?

[scouseblade]

Cretins like Samuel tie themselves in knots with their hypocrisy. They preach 'fiscal responsibility' and in the next champion 'having a go'. Football clubs are part of an ecosystem. If one club 'has a go' it impacts the whole football league. Players wages, bonuses, contract expectations. No club is an island.

You'll never hear these hypocrites calling for a draft system or wage caps or some other form of marked egalitarianism. The easiest thing to do, after all, is share the wealth equally in the prem and then we can all 'have a go'.Or give us all a budget of say 50% of the poorest club in the league's revenue. Problem solved.

The goal of these mouthpieces is the same as the EPL and government: to maintain the league's preeminence as this huge global revenue generator. At ANY cost to the fans, the sustainability of clubs or the greater good of the game. The "best league in the world TM". Until they propose huge structural changes, opinions like Samuel's are hot air.

What the league does worry about is a lack of competition that is so distinct that it eventually undermines the "greatest league in the world's" sales pitch. It's not hard to see why. Forest are a cautionary tale, not a model to support or wish to emulate.

Agree but are the authorities now getting worried that the GLITW is becoming like France and Germany? Man City win the title again that is 6 titles in 7 years. And to be honest with the exception of Liverpool, who really has "pushed" Man City in the past 7 seasons. So at the one end you have cannon fodder, the mid table mediocrity (who will fall foul of FFP because they think they are better - see Everton and potentially Forest) and then the elite - which is really becoming Man City.

 

[Yewsman]

How many of these are they making their money back on though?

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/nottingham-forest/transfers/verein/703/plus/?saison_id=2022&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=

Interesting table but ignores the fact that it’s not just the transfer fees it’s the wages they are paying and the fact that they will be contractually bound to pay for 3, 4 or maybe even 5 years. In many cases these players are not an asset but a massive liability. If they want to get rid of them they will probably end up having to continue to pay a good chunk of the wages.

 

[Selly]

What the league does worry about is a lack of competition that is so distinct that it eventually undermines the "greatest league in the world's" sales pitch. It's not hard to see why. Forest are a cautionary tale, not a model to support or wish to emulate.

But they aren`t worried enough yet to actually address the cause of the lack of competition, which is not promoted being fiscally responsible, but rather clubs higher up the league
- using their size to stockpile all the young talent in the country,
- outspending every other team in an effort to create a bench that would walk into most clubs 1st 11 in the bottom half of the league
- changing the rules (5 subs, VAR, injury time) to further stack the deck against thise clubs with fewer resources

 

[scouseblade]

But they aren`t worried enough yet to actually address the cause of the lack of competition, which is not promoted being fiscally responsible, but rather clubs higher up the league
- using their size to stockpile all the young talent in the country,
- outspending every other team in an effort to create a bench that would walk into most clubs 1st 11 in the bottom half of the league
- changing the rules (5 subs, VAR, injury time) to further stack the deck against thise clubs with fewer resources

Absolutely, the 5 sub rule more than anything irks me. How is it fair to allow clubs to effectively change half their team?? Ridiculous.

 

[ISZA ⚔️]

Cretins like Samuel tie themselves in knots with their hypocrisy. They preach 'fiscal responsibility' and in the next champion 'having a go'. Football clubs are part of an ecosystem. If one club 'has a go' it impacts the whole football league. Players wages, bonuses, contract expectations. No club is an island.

You'll never hear these hypocrites calling for a draft system or wage caps or some other form of marked egalitarianism. The easiest thing to do, after all, is share the wealth equally in the prem and then we can all 'have a go'.Or give us all a budget of say 50% of the poorest club in the league's revenue. Problem solved.

The goal of these mouthpieces is the same as the EPL and government: to maintain the league's preeminence as this huge global revenue generator. At ANY cost to the fans, the sustainability of clubs or the greater good of the game. The "best league in the world TM". Until they propose huge structural changes, opinions like Samuel's are hot air.

What the league does worry about is a lack of competition that is so distinct that it eventually undermines the "greatest league in the world's" sales pitch. It's not hard to see why. Forest are a cautionary tale, not a model to support or wish to emulate.

Trouble is it’s that far broken I’m not sure there is a way to fix it.

 

[Balham Blade]

With regards to clubs operating according to FFP rules, take a look outside the Premier League at Barcelona. They’re over one billion pounds in debt, and yet are still running. How?

Barcelona's turnover is nearly €1bn per season. No doubt they've made some horrendous commercial decisions in recent times but they're still able to service that debt (just).

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Spending £xm on players gives you £xm in assets. It doesn't disappear.

No it doesn't. A players value diminishes for all sorts of reasons, injuries, performances, proximity to the end of the contract. And if you have just been relegated and need to do a firesale, then you have much less leverage

 

[Harrisblade]

They don't need to make the money back on all of them. They just need to make close to the money back on enough of them. Heck, they might even have bought someone who's gone up in value and make a profit!

But the only one that really do that are the ones that havent made it yet.
If you buy a player to suit a particular role in YOUR team, it's unlikely you'll get too much of your money back unless you start off with a player who suddenly and unexpectedly becomes a star

 

[steve26272]

They would have been absolutely fine. Spending £xm on players gives you £xm in assets. It doesn't disappear.

 

[steve26272]

With regards to clubs operating according to FFP rules, take a look outside the Premier League at Barcelona. They’re over one billion pounds in debt, and yet are still running. How?

It’s always been about the elite clubs, and it always will be. The only way to break the hegemony is to find yourself a mega rich benefactor. That used to mean a wealthy local businessman, like Jack Walker at Blackburn. Then it was a wealthy foreign businessman or investment group like Abramovich at Chelsea, or Fenway at Liverpool, or King Power at Leicester, and now it’s a wealthy country with money to burn and a track record of appalling human rights abuse, like Man City, Newcastle, PSG etc.

There is no way a club like ours can compete fairly on this extremely biased system. The best we can hope for is survival, middling along happy to avoid relegation, like Everton seem to do every season, and perhaps a brief flirtation with the top half of the table. And if or when we do go down then the elite clubs will have replacement cannon fodder to replace us.

Fair point

There could be 2 parallel leagues

1) - FFP is in place, you cant overspend creating a fair-ish playing field - of course teams with bigger grounds/sponsors will always have an edge, but at least were all working within the guidelines

2) - Spend what you like, a dick swinging competition between the worlds richest, its your money, spunk it how you like

The problem arises when owners from option 2, play in option 1.

What gets on my tits is the guy at Forest knew the rules, entered the game and is now saying the rules are wrong

 

[scouseblade]

Fair point

There could be 2 parallel leagues

1) - FFP is in place, you cant overspend creating a fair-ish playing field - of course teams with bigger grounds/sponsors will always have an edge, but at least were all working within the guidelines

2) - Spend what you like, a dick swinging competition between the worlds richest, its your money, spunk it how you like

The problem arises when owners from option 2, play in option 1.

What gets on my tits is the guy at Forest knew the rules, entered the game and is now saying the rules are wrong

Which makes me think. Fuck it if clubs want to spend billions and go bust. They have themselves to blame. Option 1 is not fleshed out enough and is exploitable. So whats the point?

 

[Slugger]

Samuel's article on cycling from a few years ago:

Why would Cycling Governing body punish Lance Armstrong for being big again?

Now we wait. Where is Lance? Will he be stripped of his Tour victories for showing unacceptable ambition? The cycling? That’s just something we do for television these days. It doesn’t much matter any more. It’s for the cameras, really, to give some former riders a job.

Lance Armstrong should just have accepted his fate? After his illness he got back on his bike. Oh, how we cheered. Lauded by his heart and style, even if it won him few races all season. That’s how to do it, we wisely agreed. Don’t risk, don’t challenge. Consolidate. Balance. Build.

Lance is supposedly a basket-case. Got into the Tour de France and, inexplicably, tried to win it. Bought performance enhancing drugs, not always rationally, but always with the idea of having a go. And having a go used to be a good thing. etc etc


Cheating is cheating.

 

[nopigfansintown]

But they aren`t worried enough yet to actually address the cause of the lack of competition, which is not promoted being fiscally responsible, but rather clubs higher up the league
- using their size to stockpile all the young talent in the country,
- outspending every other team in an effort to create a bench that would walk into most clubs 1st 11 in the bottom half of the league
- changing the rules (5 subs, VAR, injury time) to further stack the deck against thise clubs with fewer resources

Yeah, what's happened over the last 10-15 years is a further crystallisation of wealth. A buttressing of the hegemony. EPPP has largely destroyed the lower leagues academy system - a wealth distribution mechanism. Not only can they stockpile players, it's been made easier for them.
Cup replays have, in a lot of cases, fallen by the wayside; something far more important for the lower league clubs. Then there are rule changes that have generally seemed to favour the big clubs (5 subs, added time, handball rule).

The fixation on the Champions league due to the financial rewards is also an issue. Most clubs are effectively locked out of that revenue,which isn't insignificant. Promoting that competition whilst hollowing out domestic cups is bad for everyone except the top six.

The TV companies themselves don't help. They've marketed English football culture around the big six rivalries. It's all added to a snowball effect for them six, and a snowball into the sun effect for the rest of us. A rebalancing is needed.

 

[Alan Birchenall's hair]

Never really understood the hatred for Martin Sanuels. Took a different angle to the Tevez affair than most Blades (including me), but argued his case pretty well (including the Matthew Spring affair). I always find his articles thought provoking and well written. And I think he has a point about FFP. In its present form it's just designed to present Man Utd with the trophies every year. How dare City (and previously Chelsea) come along to interfere with that goal. And 'cos someone fancies giving Everton , Forest, Newcastle etc. a go at competing with Man Utd, let's take some points away from them. It's FFP that stinks, not other clubs trying to compete with Man Utd.....

 

[AnotherBlade]

People keep saying this, but as long as:

a) They recognise that in the event of relegation they need to firesale
b) They don't make a horrendous signing(s) whose values drop massively below what amortisation would indicate

They would have been absolutely fine. Spending £xm on players gives you £xm in assets. It doesn't disappear.

It does! Do you think we'd even get 5 mil for McBurnie who cost 20 mil if we'd needed to sell him when we last went down?

 

[Torrix1889]

Did he mention Tevez & Kabba?

 

[Selly]

Never really understood the hatred for Martin Sanuels. Took a different angle to the Tevez affair than most Blades (including me), but argued his case pretty well (including the Matthew Spring affair).

The issue for me was, for an impartial journalist, he let his West ham supporting colours come through.

And in doing so started throwing mud at the wronged party via the "Steve Kabba" argument etc. Conveniently forgetting that his club did some thing wrong, lied repeatedly about it, and then did everything in their power to make the decision as difficult as possible for the commission.

There aren`t many more obvious instanced of blatant cheating in the PL era (ongoing FFP cases notwithstanding), and the party responsible wasn`t really punished.

 

[YES Blade]

Which makes me think. Fuck it if clubs want to spend billions and go bust. They have themselves to blame. Option 1 is not fleshed out enough and is exploitable. So whats the point?

I’m all for clubs spending as much as they like, clubs may go bust, but that’s never the end. Just look at Bury, they went bust and reformed again.

I really don’t understand why any fan would ever worry about United going bust. We’d be back in the league in no time and probably have some great years winning promotions in non league.

 

[bladeinspaceandtime]

I don't like the way Americans do things in general but ! They do have a system that works in some sports.

I watched an NBA game last weekend (can’t remember who). They have to tell the crowd to “make some noise” at the perceived “exciting” moments (being yanks of course they don’t). American sport is generally manufactured plastic shite.

 

[YES Blade]

I watched an NBA game last weekend (can’t remember who). They have to tell the crowd to “make some noise” at the perceived “exciting” moments (being yanks of course they don’t). American sport is generally manufactured plastic shite.

Whether you’re a fan of American sports or not, one thing that should be acknowledged is that they are really good at creating competitive leagues, where it’s very difficult for one team to dominate. But with our traditions, it would be very difficult to replicate what they do over there.

Also, their leagues and teams actually make money! Being profitable is just a complete pipe dream for English football.

 

[bladeinspaceandtime]

Whether you’re a fan of American sports or not, one thing that should be acknowledged is that they are really good at creating competitive leagues, where it’s very difficult for one team to dominate. But with our traditions, it would be very difficult to replicate what they do over there.

Also, their leagues and teams actually make money! Being profitable is just a complete pipe dream for English football.

There’s no jeopardy in American sports. In fact, teams try and finish bottom so they can have first pick in the draft system.

 

[JustLookin]

Whether you’re a fan of American sports or not, one thing that should be acknowledged is that they are really good at creating competitive leagues, where it’s very difficult for one team to dominate. But with our traditions, it would be very difficult to replicate what they do over there.

Also, their leagues and teams actually make money! Being profitable is just a complete pipe dream for English football.

Some things the Americans are good at creating:

1) money
2) entertainment

Things they’re not good at making:

1) sports

 

[YES Blade]

There’s no jeopardy in American sports. In fact, teams try and finish bottom so they can have first pick in the draft system.

Correct, but that’s why the league is competitive. (Salary caps being the other reason)

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

Correct, but that’s why the league is competitive. (Salary caps being the other reason)

That and they get taxed extra if they breach the overall cap

 

[jt64]

It does! Do you think we'd even get 5 mil for McBurnie who cost 20 mil if we'd needed to sell him when we last went down?

We'd have easily got closer to £20m than the lowball amount you're quoting

 

[Carlton Blade]

That and they get taxed extra if they breach the overall cap

And that money is given to the clubs who don't spend over the line

 

[b1ade4life]

Does anyone know how much we'd have to have spent this year for us to have breached FFP rules? How nuts would we have to have gone?
Personally my thoughts are.. if a team overspends and the shit hits the fan (in terms of financial ruin), then that's the way the cookie crumbles. Gives the rest of us a chance to move up the ladder when that happens, and what could be fairer than that?

£78.30

 

[FATTYFOULKE]

The super league is the best thing for the rest of the clubs who are considered out if the big 6.
The rest of the English/Welsh clubs can get back to a football league structure that helps all clubs and supporters.
Players wages and fees may then become realistic.

What worries me is they pee of to a super league but try to field a second string in what’s left.

No. We should tell them to go but that’s it. Totally out and they will never be re-admitted back.

I would love to see this happen. A league without City, Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool.

I actually think that would be better for all the clubs left and re-invigorate football in this country. We should also set rules in place to prevent another big six emerging in 20 years time.

I’d bet money that in time super league fans would grow bored of playing each other with long trips abroad thrown in for away matches for good measure and they’d be begging to come back.

I also think super league fans would also start to switch off their tv’s in droves after the initial novelty factor wore off.

They might not realise it but they need the likes of the rest more than we need them.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Does anyone know how much we'd have to have spent this year for us to have breached FFP rules? How nuts would we have to have gone?
Personally my thoughts are.. if a team overspends and the shit hits the fan (in terms of financial ruin), then that's the way the cookie crumbles. Gives the rest of us a chance to move up the ladder when that happens, and what could be fairer than that?

It's £117m over 3 seasons (£39m a season) above and beyond your income.

So assuming income is about £130m, we had about £210m to play with because (I believe) we were about even over the 2 previous PL seasons.

Not researched any intricacies of this but I think I'm close enough

 

[Fjortoft's Aeroplane]

I wonder what the article would have said if it were us and not Forest.

"Pigs flying in sky"

It's £117m over 3 seasons (£39m a season) above and beyond your income.

So assuming income is about £130m, we had about £210m to play with because (I believe) we were about even over the 2 previous PL seasons.

Not researched any intricacies of this but I think I'm close enough

£210m which is pretty much what you should be spending to have a real go factoring in 2/3 marquee £40 million signings. Basically if you're not close to breaking FFP... get a new owner.