|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Feb 7, 2023 21:32:45 GMT
If they are guilty then they have to pay the price, but raises the wider question of how any club breaks into the monopoly of the large established clubs, must be some questions around Chelsea, do we just revert to United, Arsenal and Liverpool as the permanent top teams? Do Newcastle deserve their turn. Personally I would like to see a fixed budget for each club in a division but that will never happen so how do teams catch up without over spending?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 8, 2023 8:23:49 GMT
I assume it is the owners who put the money down in advance but all that does is put off the day when the money runs out. The owners can't put money down for an indefinite period so say they put down a rolling 5 year advance topped up annually. If the owners sell up or go bust that means the club is good for five years but there is no guarantee that you can attract new owners who will be as generous so the club would have to downsize in order to adapt to their new circumstances. It would be really hard to insist that prospective owners agree to forward funding and it would simply price most owners out of the market - the cost of ownership would increase immensely. It's likely if faced with that they would find the forward financing with loans and do a Man Utd and foist the debt on the club rather than carry the debt themselves. Our owners do behave like sugar daddies but in effect you're expecting others to do the same. It's a nice idea but it's a big ask. It's exactly what has already been discussed by Scudamore and others no one would be forced to make these forward funded investments they would be required to go over and above the limits set for sustainability not instead of. I personally think the sustainability limits should be tailored to each club and it's turnover not some abitary figure across the board (£13M Av loss over 3 years) that doesn't represent sustainability in any way shape or form for many clubs in the championship but I've never heard that proposed by people of influence. I don't quite get why you'd use the Glazer's as an example £500M debt on a £4/5Billion enterprise is in no way over burdened it's a far healthier debt ratio than ours was before the Coates' recent write offs etc. That's why I commended their actions, as their argument against the owner investment restrictions in FFP were fataly weakened by the high debt levels they were allowing the club to accrue, the fact it was "soft" debt was not a convincing argument at all. There is a hell of a lot going on right now in terms of football finances and I'm hopeful it will be not only good for Stoke but for the whole of football. The elite are being forced to the negotiating table by the threat of legislation and are trying to get out in front of the game, the EFL should play hard ball and be very suspiscious of anything they offer. I use the Man Utd debt situation because it illustrates how owners actually behave and I'm asking you to explain how your future funding idea would work given that your it seems to rely on the generosity of owners. You are ducking the question. Before the Glazers took over Man Utd didn't have any debt. They prided themselves on being one of the few clubs at that time that were debt free. The club's 500m debt is only viable because their income is so high but that income isn't guaranteed - if they were to be out of the European places for a period of time or worse still got relegated that debt would no longer be sustainable. The Glazers have made sure that if Man Utd were to go belly up they wouldn't. In a sense that 500m is Man Utd's future funding but it isn't the owners who have provided the funding from their own pocket. If under your proposal the Glazers had to provide the 500m out of their own pocket they probably wouldn't have touched Man Utd with a barge pole. Do you think there is a cue of people with 500m to spare and willing to chuck it away on a football club? Ours may have but that level of altruistic behaviour is very rare and to rely on that as the standard way of finding football sense bit like wishful thinking. I may well be doing your idea a disservice but you haven't explained how it works without expecting owners to behave in a way that most aren't inclined to behave. I'm just asking for an explanation as to how it would actually work.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 8, 2023 8:41:16 GMT
If they are guilty then they have to pay the price, but raises the wider question of how any club breaks into the monopoly of the large established clubs, must be some questions around Chelsea, do we just revert to United, Arsenal and Liverpool as the permanent top teams? Do Newcastle deserve their turn. Personally I would like to see a fixed budget for each club in a division but that will never happen so how do teams catch up without over spending? I agree - they have to pray the price. For me the question isn't how a club breaks into the monopoly of the top six it's getting rid of the monopoly. At the moment the big money from television, the overseas revenue driven by media exposure and European competition is being circulated among more or less the same six clubs. Some of those clubs (like Man Utd) are mortgaging their clubs future on remaining in the top six. Some (like Man City) may well be cheating to keep their place. Those behaviours force up the cost of success and keep other clubs out of the top six at the risk of their clubs continued existence. Either the league has to tighten up the financial regulations or distribute the money more equitably or one of the big six has to go belly up - either get relegated and go bankrupt or get thrown out the league and go bankrupt. That would discourage clubs from high risk behaviour and level the playing field. Man City getting chucked out the league could result in the breakup of the monopoly. Awful for Man City fans, good for everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Feb 8, 2023 8:50:14 GMT
It's exactly what has already been discussed by Scudamore and others no one would be forced to make these forward funded investments they would be required to go over and above the limits set for sustainability not instead of. I personally think the sustainability limits should be tailored to each club and it's turnover not some abitary figure across the board (£13M Av loss over 3 years) that doesn't represent sustainability in any way shape or form for many clubs in the championship but I've never heard that proposed by people of influence. I don't quite get why you'd use the Glazer's as an example £500M debt on a £4/5Billion enterprise is in no way over burdened it's a far healthier debt ratio than ours was before the Coates' recent write offs etc. That's why I commended their actions, as their argument against the owner investment restrictions in FFP were fataly weakened by the high debt levels they were allowing the club to accrue, the fact it was "soft" debt was not a convincing argument at all. There is a hell of a lot going on right now in terms of football finances and I'm hopeful it will be not only good for Stoke but for the whole of football. The elite are being forced to the negotiating table by the threat of legislation and are trying to get out in front of the game, the EFL should play hard ball and be very suspiscious of anything they offer. I use the Man Utd debt situation because it illustrates how owners actually behave and I'm asking you to explain how your future funding idea would work given that your it seems to rely on the generosity of owners. You are ducking the question. Before the Glazers took over Man Utd didn't have any debt. They prided themselves on being one of the few clubs at that time that were debt free. The club's 500m debt is only viable because their income is so high but that income isn't guaranteed - if they were to be out of the European places for a period of time or worse still got relegated that debt would no longer be sustainable. The Glazers have made sure that if Man Utd were to go belly up they wouldn't. In a sense that 500m is Man Utd's future funding but it isn't the owners who have provided the funding from their own pocket. If under your proposal the Glazers had to provide the 500m out of their own pocket they probably wouldn't have touched Man Utd with a barge pole. Do you think there is a cue of people with 500m to spare and willing to chuck it away on a football club? Ours may have but that level of altruistic behaviour is very rare and to rely on that as the standard way of finding football sense bit like wishful thinking. I may well be doing your idea a disservice but you haven't explained how it works without expecting owners to behave in a way that most aren't inclined to behave. I'm just asking for an explanation as to how it would actually work. I don’t think you’re doing me a disservice at all more like crediting me with far more knowledge than I have. It’s not my idea it’s just a proposal I’ve heard about aired by figures of influence within the game. It’s their idea and that’s why I can’t explain exactly how it would work. I’m talking about Man Utd not in terms of their company history or even in terms of football finance but of a business with a market value believed to be over £4billion having £500M in debt is not what most observers would call over burdened. I don’t even think Warren Buffet would be put off by it’s level of “leverage”. If the sky were to fall in it would probably be unsustainable but how many businesses wouldn’t.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Feb 8, 2023 8:54:46 GMT
It just shows corruption at the top in the “new money” clubs.
I wonder if there’ll ever be an investigation into where the money Abramavich funded Chelsea’s trophies came from.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Feb 8, 2023 9:28:56 GMT
Foreign owners attracted by the high profile of the Premier League, I still see the PL as a new invention! Then I'm not sure I agree with you. Glazers at Man U Fenway Sports Group at Liverpool Abramovic at Chelsea Kroenke at Arsenal All new money
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Feb 8, 2023 9:35:50 GMT
If they are guilty then they have to pay the price, but raises the wider question of how any club breaks into the monopoly of the large established clubs, must be some questions around Chelsea, do we just revert to United, Arsenal and Liverpool as the permanent top teams? Do Newcastle deserve their turn. Personally I would like to see a fixed budget for each club in a division but that will never happen so how do teams catch up without over spending? I agree - they have to pray the price. For me the question isn't how a club breaks into the monopoly of the top six it's getting rid of the monopoly. At the moment the big money from television, the overseas revenue driven by media exposure and European competition is being circulated among more or less the same six clubs. Some of those clubs (like Man Utd) are mortgaging their clubs future on remaining in the top six. Some (like Man City) may well be cheating to keep their place. Those behaviours force up the cost of success and keep other clubs out of the top six at the risk of their clubs continued existence. Either the league has to tighten up the financial regulations or distribute the money more equitably or one of the big six has to go belly up - either get relegated and go bankrupt or get thrown out the league and go bankrupt. That would discourage clubs from high risk behaviour and level the playing field. Man City getting chucked out the league could result in the breakup of the monopoly. Awful for Man City fans, good for everyone else. I wish it would break the monopoly, sadly I don't see it, news today of a Qatari consortium looking at United, these big clubs are now huge corporate brands and will protect their power as much as any corporate entity does. I honestly wish they go off and setup their super league as long as the rest of football refuses to have anything to do with them.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Feb 8, 2023 9:41:40 GMT
I agree - they have to pray the price. For me the question isn't how a club breaks into the monopoly of the top six it's getting rid of the monopoly. At the moment the big money from television, the overseas revenue driven by media exposure and European competition is being circulated among more or less the same six clubs. Some of those clubs (like Man Utd) are mortgaging their clubs future on remaining in the top six. Some (like Man City) may well be cheating to keep their place. Those behaviours force up the cost of success and keep other clubs out of the top six at the risk of their clubs continued existence. Either the league has to tighten up the financial regulations or distribute the money more equitably or one of the big six has to go belly up - either get relegated and go bankrupt or get thrown out the league and go bankrupt. That would discourage clubs from high risk behaviour and level the playing field. Man City getting chucked out the league could result in the breakup of the monopoly. Awful for Man City fans, good for everyone else. I wish it would break the monopoly, sadly I don't see it, news today of a Qatari consortium looking at United, these big clubs are now huge corporate brands and will protect their power as much as any corporate entity does. I honestly wish they go off and setup their super league as long as the rest of football refuses to have anything to do with them. That’s why I’m so proud we still have local owners. They may have there faults and have made mistakes but they’re fans and not someone 1000s of miles away on some big ego trip who is happy to spend 100m like they’ve just found it in there back pocket.
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Feb 8, 2023 9:54:20 GMT
If they are guilty then they have to pay the price, but raises the wider question of how any club breaks into the monopoly of the large established clubs, must be some questions around Chelsea, do we just revert to United, Arsenal and Liverpool as the permanent top teams? Do Newcastle deserve their turn. Personally I would like to see a fixed budget for each club in a division but that will never happen so how do teams catch up without over spending? I agree - they have to pray the price. For me the question isn't how a club breaks into the monopoly of the top six it's getting rid of the monopoly. At the moment the big money from television, the overseas revenue driven by media exposure and European competition is being circulated among more or less the same six clubs. Some of those clubs (like Man Utd) are mortgaging their clubs future on remaining in the top six. Some (like Man City) may well be cheating to keep their place. Those behaviours force up the cost of success and keep other clubs out of the top six at the risk of their clubs continued existence. Either the league has to tighten up the financial regulations or distribute the money more equitably or one of the big six has to go belly up - either get relegated and go bankrupt or get thrown out the league and go bankrupt. That would discourage clubs from high risk behaviour and level the playing field. Man City getting chucked out the league could result in the breakup of the monopoly. Awful for Man City fans, good for everyone else. The big six or is it eight want less equitable distribution. They look enviously at Real and Barca's bigger slice of the pie in Spain (I am sure I read this, that they get more than other teams)! The European super league was all about this. Football stinks to high heaven of inequality. But the Premier League, eufa and fifa are never going to do anything about this when they're bathed in the stench of it all! Look how furious they were when the European Super League was proposed... 😂
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Feb 8, 2023 10:06:37 GMT
Sky pushing that other clubs want them expelled.
Sod all will happen, maybe a points deduction but I do t see that either
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Feb 8, 2023 10:39:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Feb 8, 2023 11:30:08 GMT
I agree - they have to pray the price. For me the question isn't how a club breaks into the monopoly of the top six it's getting rid of the monopoly. At the moment the big money from television, the overseas revenue driven by media exposure and European competition is being circulated among more or less the same six clubs. Some of those clubs (like Man Utd) are mortgaging their clubs future on remaining in the top six. Some (like Man City) may well be cheating to keep their place. Those behaviours force up the cost of success and keep other clubs out of the top six at the risk of their clubs continued existence. Either the league has to tighten up the financial regulations or distribute the money more equitably or one of the big six has to go belly up - either get relegated and go bankrupt or get thrown out the league and go bankrupt. That would discourage clubs from high risk behaviour and level the playing field. Man City getting chucked out the league could result in the breakup of the monopoly. Awful for Man City fans, good for everyone else. The big six or is it eight want less equitable distribution. They look enviously at Real and Barca's bigger slice of the pie in Spain (I am sure I read this, that they get more than other teams)! The European super league was all about this. Football stinks to high heaven of inequality. But the Premier League, eufa and fifa are never going to do anything about this when they're bathed in the stench of it all! Look how furious they were when the European Super League was proposed... 😂 That's what they might want and who could blame them but even they know it's not going to happen here. They themselves have already flown a kite on proposals for more sustainable distribution. They aren't doing it because they're concerned for the good of the game across the board, they're doing it because they know it's going to be forced upon them by the independent football regulator once appointed and are trying to get out ahead of the game. So you can bet their proposal is less generous and with more strings attached than what they fear will be imposed upon them. The very nature of the pyramid system is never going to be equitable it's not meant to be, it's a hiarachy a meritocracy. Just like capitalism itself it's a meritocracy that needs to be restrained and controlled for the greater good because just like the pyramid if the bottom blocks crumble the blocks at the top will fall to earth.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Feb 8, 2023 16:45:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Feb 8, 2023 16:58:30 GMT
Typical. Couldn’t care less then. We could still have a parade. We could get that old Lymers bus we had in 72. It's been restored and is still about. Maybe we could get a “legends” match versus Man Utd (who Man City beat in the Semi) to decide the actual winner.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Feb 8, 2023 18:40:38 GMT
Then I'm not sure I agree with you. Glazers at Man U Fenway Sports Group at Liverpool Abramovic at Chelsea Kroenke at Arsenal All new money But the likes of Liverpool and Man Utd were pulling in huge money before the newer owners, hence to me they're old money. Surely Man Utd were in better financial condition pre-Glazers, right? I mean, they're a mess these days and have huge debts but mid 00s they were almost certainly turning over more than Barcelona, Real Madrid, PSG.... Hence old money. This feels like an attack on 'new money' who came in and rocked the ship. Man Utd have spent cataclysmic sums since and haven't fallen foul.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Feb 8, 2023 18:46:05 GMT
Glazers at Man U Fenway Sports Group at Liverpool Abramovic at Chelsea Kroenke at Arsenal All new money But the likes of Liverpool and Man Utd were pulling in huge money before the newer owners, hence to me they're old money. Surely Man Utd were in better financial condition pre-Glazers, right? I mean, they're a mess these days and have huge debts but mid 00s they were almost certainly turning over more than Barcelona, Real Madrid, PSG.... Hence old money. This feels like an attack on 'new money' who came in and rocked the ship. Under old money Man U were still subject to the vagaries of the peaks and troughs of fortune including relegation, as were Spurs, Chelsea, Man City and Newcastle. This ain't going to happen again.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Feb 8, 2023 20:15:17 GMT
Difficult this because every club should have the ability to rise up the leagues and challenge the established order.
FFP was designed as a tool by the haves to always be the haves if limiting a club to spend what it earns.
The other end of the spectrum is a Pompey. Should just fuck FFP off.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 9, 2023 8:43:03 GMT
Difficult this because every club should have the ability to rise up the leagues and challenge the established order. FFP was designed as a tool by the haves to always be the haves if limiting a club to spend what it earns. The other end of the spectrum is a Pompey. Should just fuck FFP off. That's completely wrong. FFP was designed to stop unscrupulous/incompetent owners from pumping an unsustainable amount of money into a club in a dash for glory - which is what would happen if FFP were not to exist. This might result in one or two clubs to briefly break into the big six (which would encourage other clubs to try the same) but the majority of clubs who take the gamble would not make it to the promised land and go bankrupt. In addition the big clubs that could afford it would just plough more money in to force the upstarts out making football finances ever more precarious and turning the league even more into haves and have nots. It might not be perfect but without it there would be a lot of empty stadia. It isn't the haves doing this. If some of the haves had their way they'd gladly get rid of FFP because if it comes down to a battle of the cheque books they would win. The club's that try to operate on a top six budget without a top six income would go bust in a couple of years - all the top six have to do is stay in the top six while those trying to break in fall by the wayside. There is an issue with the Premier League being dominated by the same 6 clubs (7 if Newcastle break in). However scrapping FFP isn't the solution.
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Feb 9, 2023 9:11:55 GMT
FFP should be scrapped Reducing the ownership of contracts to a ridiculous amount of players should be brought in Limiting the amount of players that you can loan out should be brought in As for going bust. Then what happened to Glasgow Rangers with the possibility of not been allowed to get promotion for a number of years sounds good...
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 9, 2023 10:07:18 GMT
FFP should be scrapped Reducing the ownership of contracts to a ridiculous amount of players should be brought in Limiting the amount of players that you can loan out should be brought in As for going bust. Then what happened to Glasgow Rangers with the possibility of not been allowed to get promotion for a number of years sounds good... Rangers didn't end up in trouble because of FFP. In fact they ended up in trouble because they didn't run the club sustainably - which is what FFP forces clubs to do. For years Rangers ran at a loss - they bought success on the back of unsustainable debt. What did for them was a tax dodge that the HMRC cottoned on to and the club went bust. The clubs in the Scottish Premier League (who had lost out because of Rangers' dodgy financial practices) refused to let the newly reformed club back into the league so they joined the lower leagues (a different organisation) and had to win themselves a place back in the Premier League. Rangers are a perfect example of why FFP shouldn't be scrapped - they bought success by behaving irresponsibly. After the Rangers debacle the Scottish Premier League didn't loosen FFP - they tightened up. Not to ensure more teams would get caught out but to stop other teams doing a Rangers. Scrapping FFP is becoming the footballing equivalent of Brexit - a really cool idea for getting rid of a random list of problems that will in fact be made worse with absolutely no thought as to the actual practical consequences and no plan to deal with the fallout.
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Feb 9, 2023 11:31:20 GMT
Broadly speaking, Rangers broke the rules and their punishment was demotion.
Demotion is a suitable punishment and with the threat of not being allowed promotion for ײ years.
If someone wants to pay ridiculous wages to players and they are allowed to
Yet another is not allowed to pay the same wages meaning they can't get the players nor the chance of competing equally. What is fare about that?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2023 11:37:23 GMT
They made Rangers start again at the bottom. It would be a pisser if that happened to Man City 🤣
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 9, 2023 12:55:46 GMT
They made Rangers start again at the bottom. It would be a pisser if that happened to Man City 🤣 Depends how the Premier League apply the sanction. If it's a massive points deduction then strictly speaking they would be relegated and could join the Championship as a relegated side. If they are thrown out of the Premier League they would have to apply to join the EFL and the EFL would be under no obligation to accept them and would be under a lot of pressure by the existing clubs to start them in League 2. The situation with Rangers was different - the SPL didn't expel them, the club went bust and technically no longer existed. The SPL refused to accept the new Rangers (strictly speaking a different club) into the league. Unlike Rangers Man City are in no immediate danger of going bust and ceasing to exist.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2023 0:18:04 GMT
They made Rangers start again at the bottom. It would be a pisser if that happened to Man City 🤣 Depends how the Premier League apply the sanction. If it's a massive points deduction then strictly speaking they would be relegated and could join the Championship as a relegated side. If they are thrown out of the Premier League they would have to apply to join the EFL and the EFL would be under no obligation to accept them and would be under a lot of pressure by the existing clubs to start them in League 2. The situation with Rangers was different - the SPL didn't expel them, the club went bust and technically no longer existed. The SPL refused to accept the new Rangers (strictly speaking a different club) into the league. Unlike Rangers Man City are in no immediate danger of going bust and ceasing to exist. Fair enough mate, the situations are completely different but the outcome could be the same, but i doubt the Premier League have the bollocks to expel them from their league as they're worth to much to them to have them in there. I'd love it Kevin Keegan style if they did though
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 10, 2023 8:32:37 GMT
Depends how the Premier League apply the sanction. If it's a massive points deduction then strictly speaking they would be relegated and could join the Championship as a relegated side. If they are thrown out of the Premier League they would have to apply to join the EFL and the EFL would be under no obligation to accept them and would be under a lot of pressure by the existing clubs to start them in League 2. The situation with Rangers was different - the SPL didn't expel them, the club went bust and technically no longer existed. The SPL refused to accept the new Rangers (strictly speaking a different club) into the league. Unlike Rangers Man City are in no immediate danger of going bust and ceasing to exist. Fair enough mate, the situations are completely different but the outcome could be the same, but i doubt the Premier League have the bollocks to expel them from their league as they're worth to much to them to have them in there. I'd love it Kevin Keegan style if they did though Yes sorry - pedant alert . I agree it could have the same outcome (by a different route) and despite my cynicism about how football is run I think it might happen. And I think it should and although I feel sorry for Man City fans I think it would be a good thing. What the League are claiming is a big deal - systematic breaking of the League rules over a sustained period. If they want this to go away why would they continue pursuing it and put it in the public domain? It's the worse possible way of making something go away. If Man City are found guilty and the league go easy on the punishment the rest of the clubs will (rightly) go mad - they've been cheated out of trophies and prize money. In addition the League will effectively be saying we have got these rules but feel free to break them because we won't do much if you do - they would have zero credibility and the league will be decided on the basis of who is the best cheat. Some might like that idea but personally I think it would be a disaster - owners would take risks, clubs will go out of business and the same big six/seven will consolidate their position on the basis they have the biggest bank balance and nothing else matters. (Bonus points for the Metallica reference?)
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Feb 10, 2023 8:52:45 GMT
Depends how the Premier League apply the sanction. If it's a massive points deduction then strictly speaking they would be relegated and could join the Championship as a relegated side. If they are thrown out of the Premier League they would have to apply to join the EFL and the EFL would be under no obligation to accept them and would be under a lot of pressure by the existing clubs to start them in League 2. The situation with Rangers was different - the SPL didn't expel them, the club went bust and technically no longer existed. The SPL refused to accept the new Rangers (strictly speaking a different club) into the league. Unlike Rangers Man City are in no immediate danger of going bust and ceasing to exist. Fair enough mate, the situations are completely different but the outcome could be the same, but i doubt the Premier League have the bollocks to expel them from their league as they're worth to much to them to have them in there. I'd love it Kevin Keegan style if they did though I don’t get the sentiment. People moan about the elite dominating the league then want to see a club that has forced it’s way into the elite chucked out. Smacks of jealousy, why they’re proving it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 10, 2023 9:52:52 GMT
Fair enough mate, the situations are completely different but the outcome could be the same, but i doubt the Premier League have the bollocks to expel them from their league as they're worth to much to them to have them in there. I'd love it Kevin Keegan style if they did though I don’t get the sentiment. People moan about the elite dominating the league then want to see a club that has forced it’s way into the elite chucked out. Smacks of jealousy, why they’re proving it can be done. They forced their way in by cheating and maintained their place in the elite by cheating. It's isn't jealousy it's anger - why should the clubs who stuck by the rules be stopped from being successful by cheats? While Man City cheated several clubs missed out on European football and the money and exposure that goes with it. Their chance of breaking into the elite was denied them by a now established member of the elite cheating. How on earth is that good for the game? What you are suggesting isn't some Robin Hood story of a little guy defeating the big boys - it's the story if how elites get to be elites and remain elites by keeping potential rivals at bay through fair means and foul. All it proves is that if you are funded by an oil rich state and are prepared to cheat you too can become part of the elite. Thing is oil rich states are in limited supply and (hopefully) cheats will get caught and thrown out. Or do you believe cheating is fine and we all should do it? And presumably if we all do it we all can become members of the elite? And if everybody can't become a member of the elite (which by definition you can't) how do you decide on who stays in the club?
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Feb 10, 2023 10:20:35 GMT
I don’t get the sentiment. People moan about the elite dominating the league then want to see a club that has forced it’s way into the elite chucked out. Smacks of jealousy, why they’re proving it can be done. They forced their way in by cheating and maintained their place in the elite by cheating. It's isn't jealousy it's anger - why should the clubs who stuck by the rules be stopped from being successful by cheats? While Man City cheated several clubs missed out on European football and the money and exposure that goes with it. Their chance of breaking into the elite was denied them by a now established member of the elite cheating. How on earth is that good for the game? What you are suggesting isn't some Robin Hood story of a little guy defeating the big boys - it's the story if how elites get to be elites and remain elites by keeping potential rivals at bay through fair means and foul. All it proves is that if you are funded by an oil rich state and are prepared to cheat you too can become part of the elite. Thing is oil rich states are in limited supply and (hopefully) cheats will get caught and thrown out. Or do you believe cheating is fine and we all should do it? And presumably if we all do it we all can become members of the elite? And if everybody can't become a member of the elite (which by definition you can't) how do you decide on who stays in the club? Football is heavily dominated by finance has been ever since I can remember. Who signed the first million pound player little Notts Forest and oh he scored in one of their European Cup successes. Those who push the financial boundaries tend to win. Is it cheating I still see 11 vs 11 on the same pitch. So what is your objection? Seems to be linked with where the money comes from Arabs, Russian Mafia, Americans, billionaire bookmakers from Goldenhill. Just as always the status quo can be broken it just costs a hell of a lot more to do so. The elite will always try to come up with ways to prevent it, see Newcastle take over they tried to block. Our relatively successful period involved spending more than our peers, if our owners had continued outspending our peers we’d still be at the top table and their asset would be worth multiple times it’s current value. No use being sore about it our owners just didn’t have the ruthless determination to carry on what they’d started.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Feb 10, 2023 10:25:31 GMT
They forced their way in by cheating and maintained their place in the elite by cheating. It's isn't jealousy it's anger - why should the clubs who stuck by the rules be stopped from being successful by cheats? While Man City cheated several clubs missed out on European football and the money and exposure that goes with it. Their chance of breaking into the elite was denied them by a now established member of the elite cheating. How on earth is that good for the game? What you are suggesting isn't some Robin Hood story of a little guy defeating the big boys - it's the story if how elites get to be elites and remain elites by keeping potential rivals at bay through fair means and foul. All it proves is that if you are funded by an oil rich state and are prepared to cheat you too can become part of the elite. Thing is oil rich states are in limited supply and (hopefully) cheats will get caught and thrown out. Or do you believe cheating is fine and we all should do it? And presumably if we all do it we all can become members of the elite? And if everybody can't become a member of the elite (which by definition you can't) how do you decide on who stays in the club? Football is heavily dominated by finance has been ever since I can remember. Who signed the first million pound player little Notts Forest and oh he scored in one of their European Cup successes. Those who push the financial boundaries tend to win. Is it cheating I still see 11 vs 11 on the same pitch. So what is your objection? Seems to be linked with where the money comes from Arabs, Russian Mafia, Americans, billionaire bookmakers from Goldenhill. Just as always the status quo can be broken it just costs a hell of a lot more to do so. The elite will always try to come up with ways to prevent it, see Newcastle take over they tried to block. Our relatively successful period involved spending more than our peers, if our owners had continued outspending our peers we’d still be at the top table and their asset would be worth multiple times it’s current value. No use being sore about it our owners just didn’t have the ruthless determination to carry on what they’d started. Spot on though give me the Coates everyday ahead of those mentioned in your post.
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Feb 10, 2023 10:27:43 GMT
I now hear that a European Super Lge is raising its very ugly head again. Will this enter the equation I wonder. ?
|
|