Man City trigger the rebirth of the European Super League

[Tylluan]

By threatened to sue the Premier League 

https://www.football365.com/news/man-city-unprecedented-legal-action-premier-league-ffp-civil-war

[Laceups]

You can see it now. The season we finally return to the top flight and the ESL is created and the money from the Prem fucks off to Europe 😂

The Wednesday way.

[HoylandOwl]

Let them go if they want to. And anyone else that does want to.

[Billysboy]

Quicker they fuck off the better, may then get a semblance of the game many fell in love with.

[Tylluan]

1 hour ago, Laceups said:

You can see it now. The season we finally return to the top flight and the ESL is created and the money from the Prem fucks off to Europe 😂

The Wednesday way.

Sky and TNT are tied into the PL until 2030 at a cost of £6.7bn but I'm guessing they'll be all sorts of legal wrangling if City et-al leave as the broadcasters could complain they're not getting the service they signed up for. 

I don't think a Super Sunday featuring Bournemouth vs Southampton and Brighton vs Palace has the same world wide draw as Arsenal v City and Man Utd v Liverpool 

[MAL]

3 minutes ago, Tylluan said:

Sky and TNT are tied into the PL until 2030 at a cost of £6.7bn but I'm guessing they'll be all sorts of legal wrangling if City et-al leave as the broadcasters could complain they're not getting the service they signed up for. 

I don't think a Super Sunday featuring Bournemouth vs Southampton and Brighton vs Palace has the same world wide draw as Arsenal v City and Man Utd v Liverpool 

I agree, but...

If they Fuckoff 🤞 🙏 then those you mentioned could be the elite games because money will still be pumped in, Sky & anybody else who wants the coverage cannot afford to lose the English football market, which is what this will do, IMHO

People will not just watch a few teams in a league they have no affinity to, they might choose one to support but but it will not have fans/people flocking to pay money to watch the same teams every week.

It might get me to watch some games other than us, i doubt it though.

 

Hope this comes across okay, might have had a tipple or two 🫡

[mkowl]

What I don't get is City historically were a decent Club, by that have good days, then fuck up, meander around a bit in the leagues. Fans were generally OK.

To focus on the positives they have invested a lot in that area, they have transformed how football is run as a business, in Pep how the game is played.

But that appears not to be enough. Winning 4 titles on the bounce, trophies galore, they want to be outside the rules, make their own to what purpose. Crush the opposition in England more than they already do. 

What annoys me about that is there has been many occasions in their history Man U, Liverpool et al could have sought to maintain their dominance at a time when City were on their downers.

Perhaps winning a league title does not get boring, albeit the lacklustre fan base at times suggests otherwise. Perhaps a European Super League will eventually arise, but the one truism there is these dominant clubs can't all win it. Some will be 16th and what then. 

[Tylluan]

Sky and the Premier League have turned top level football in England into sports entertainment that is based on 'tourist' viewing by TV. 85% of those watching Liverpool vs Man City don't support either team. (Ipsos poll in 22/23 season) 

But the Premier League can't have it both ways. Sky pump the money in for the premium global product of the players within the PL but the PL can't keep saying to the clubs we want you to bring the best players in the world here, so we stay the premium product, but we're going to restrict the revenue you bring in to pay for these players. 

And the middle teams need to realise they're actually only there to make up the numbers, from a product brand point of view. They're never going to break top 4, never going to create a global image to rival others, so to cry about not having a level playing field is stupid. Just take the money, which is now more than ever, and create a sustainable business within your own parameters. 

If you want competitive football on a semi level playing field then get relegated. 

 

Edited June 5 by Tylluan

[Andyben]

25 minutes ago, mkowl said:

To focus on the positives they have invested a lot in that area, they have transformed how football is run as a business, in Pep how the game is played.

But that appears not to be enough. Winning 4 titles on the bounce, trophies galore, they want to be outside the rules, make their own to what purpose. Crush the opposition in England more than they already do.

The charges all relates to the time when or just after the big money arrived - not 2020/2021-2024.

They felt that they needed to do this because of how Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal etc had corrupted the PL into a protectionist regime.

The 'rules' were supposedly set up to protect fans from having another Ridsdale/Leeds situation but the old guard pressured the PL into using them for their own accord - ironically with the threat of a ESL as leverage.

Man City are wholly correct to challenge the PL and we should wish them luck as it will make it easier for a benefactor to pump millions into us if the chance arrives without having to fiddle our own books.

And lets be honest - the Rules haven't protected Leeds from themselves (again) or stopped the PP loading demblades with millions of debt without a pot to piss in, so they have failed.

 

Edited June 5 by Andyben

[Andyben]

1 hour ago, mkowl said:

Perhaps winning a league title does not get boring

At this time it's less about the winning the league for them, more about their rivals not winning and trying to catch up with the proper big clubs

[mkowl]

1 hour ago, Andyben said:

The charges all relates to the time when or just after the big money arrived - not 2020/2021-2024.

They felt that they needed to do this because of how Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal etc had corrupted the PL into a protectionist regime.

The 'rules' were supposedly set up to protect fans from having another Ridsdale/Leeds situation but the old guard pressured the PL into using them for their own accord - ironically with the threat of a ESL as leverage.

Man City are wholly correct to challenge the PL and we should wish them luck as it will make it easier for a benefactor to pump millions into us if the chance arrives without having to fiddle our own books.

And lets be honest - the Rules haven't protected Leeds from themselves (again) or stopped the PP loading demblades with millions of debt without a pot to piss in, so they have failed.

 

I will agree the FFP rules have not prevented issues

I would argue that without FFP rules it could be a whole lot worse 

It would take one largeish club - lets call them Everton to default on transfer payment instalments. Say they owed 50m because they were permitted to spend unlimited sums. The other side of that equation is Sheffield Wednesday having sold Cadamateri for 20m. On the back of that fee we bought 3 players for 20m, including a promising youngster for 2m from Donny Rovers.

One default and like a pack of cards they could fall 

But lets be clear City have thrown the big lawyers on the case to almost use as a bargaining chip against the 115 charges. 

[Andyben]

3 minutes ago, mkowl said:

I will agree the FFP rules have not prevented issues

I would argue that without FFP rules it could be a whole lot worse 

It would take one largeish club - lets call them Everton to default on transfer payment instalments. Say they owed 50m because they were permitted to spend unlimited sums. The other side of that equation is Sheffield Wednesday having sold Cadamateri for 20m. On the back of that fee we bought 3 players for 20m, including a promising youngster for 2m from Donny Rovers.

One default and like a pack of cards they could fall 

But lets be clear City have thrown the big lawyers on the case to almost use as a bargaining chip against the 115 charges. 

nothing in the current rules stops the above from happening though, in fact it could be argued that they contribute to it

[Andyben]

7 minutes ago, mkowl said:

But lets be clear City have thrown the big lawyers on the case to almost use as a bargaining chip against the 115 charges. 

Out of interest, what are the 115 charges comprised of?

Aren't the majority in relation to internal book fiddling (hiding source of sponsorship income etc) and then covering it up?

I'd argue that what the Glazers did to Man U is 100x more worthy of charges and banning orders etc. they've done what happened at Blackpool, Rochdale etc but luckily with a club that could support it - albeit with the effect of them becoming less relevant as they can't afford the galacticos or a new debt-free 21st century stadium

 

 

Edited June 5 by Andyben

[Tylluan]

3 hours ago, mkowl said:

would take one largeish club - lets call them Everton to default on transfer payment instalments. Say they owed 50m because they were permitted to spend unlimited sums. The other side of that equation is Sheffield Wednesday having sold Cadamateri for 20m. On the back of that fee we bought 3 players for 20m, including a promising youngster for 2m from Donny Rovers.

That's easy to solve. You want to buy Rhian Brewster for £24m then it's all up front, not £6m a year for four years and then default on several payments. 

As part of proving financial stability in order to gain a yearly operating licence you have to declare a transfer budget and how it's been funded and you can't go over. 

Might stop clubs over inflating transfer prices or dodgy horse trading through agents

[mkowl]

7 hours ago, Andyben said:

Out of interest, what are the 115 charges comprised of?

Aren't the majority in relation to internal book fiddling (hiding source of sponsorship income etc) and then covering it up?

I'd argue that what the Glazers did to Man U is 100x more worthy of charges and banning orders etc. they've done what happened at Blackpool, Rochdale etc but luckily with a club that could support it - albeit with the effect of them becoming less relevant as they can't afford the galacticos or a new debt-free 21st century stadium

 

 

https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/

[mkowl]

So 54 charges of not providing information 

More not providing information on player and manager salaries.

7 about FFP and UEFA - which if I recall was the value of the sponsorship deal.

So the vast majority are failure to supply information over a 9 year period - hence the EPL cannot assess if there are other FFP breaches unless that info is provided.

It's not minor stuff. 

[Andyben]

It's nothing Kev.

[mkowl]

25 minutes ago, Andyben said:

It's nothing Kev.

Clearly the EPL beg to differ and rightly so.

If you want fairness in football then clubs cannot be outside the rules or deliberately obfuscate

That's the domain of the political class

 

[Andyben]

It's spendjng their own money that they can afford.

What's wrong with that 

[Tylluan]

31 minutes ago, mkowl said:

If you want fairness in football then clubs cannot be outside the rules or deliberately obfuscate

There's been no fairness in football since the first time a club owner poached an opposition player by offering him some form of cash incentives. 

There's always been richer club owners than others so as @Andyben says let them spend their money as long as they can prove they've got it. Even in Dog and Duck Sunday League pub the better players gravitated to the pubs where the landlord was more generous with the free pints or they had the better sponsor who chipped in for new kit and boots. 

I don't remember other club owners kicking off when Spurs brought in Klinsmann on stupid wages and no one said 'hold up, Man Utd can't spend that much because I can't" when Fergie paid £30m for Ferdinand. There's a valid argument to say FFP has caused the issues it was brought in to negate. You wouldn't have to forensically investigate every club's accounts to see that every single one has sailed close to the wind by overspending in year one and then having to drastically cut back in year three. It's not exactly a sustainable business model is it where  clubs can adopt an almost shit or bust mentality knowing they've got two years to try and claw it back and then use dubious means to do so. The EFL wouldn't have battered an eye lid if Chansiri had 'sold' himself the ground a year earlier so it would have appeared in the right accounts to counter our FFP overspend. They even offered advice. 

I see no problem with clubs being able to spend whatever they want providing they can prove they've got it. 

[mkowl]

25 minutes ago, Tylluan said:

There's been no fairness in football since the first time a club owner poached an opposition player by offering him some form of cash incentives. 

There's always been richer club owners than others so as @Andyben says let them spend their money as long as they can prove they've got it. Even in Dog and Duck Sunday League pub the better players gravitated to the pubs where the landlord was more generous with the free pints or they had the better sponsor who chipped in for new kit and boots. 

I don't remember other club owners kicking off when Spurs brought in Klinsmann on stupid wages and no one said 'hold up, Man Utd can't spend that much because I can't" when Fergie paid £30m for Ferdinand. There's a valid argument to say FFP has caused the issues it was brought in to negate. You wouldn't have to forensically investigate every club's accounts to see that every single one has sailed close to the wind by overspending in year one and then having to drastically cut back in year three. It's not exactly a sustainable business model is it where  clubs can adopt an almost shit or bust mentality knowing they've got two years to try and claw it back and then use dubious means to do so. The EFL wouldn't have battered an eye lid if Chansiri had 'sold' himself the ground a year earlier so it would have appeared in the right accounts to counter our FFP overspend. They even offered advice. 

I see no problem with clubs being able to spend whatever they want providing they can prove they've got it. 

I haven't said that fairness requires equality. 

Fairness in football is about the clubs agreeing the rules as they do, then following them. By that I mean the EPL is an organisation of 20 members, each get one vote. So the FFP rules were not imposed on the Clubs but agreed and voted in by the clubs.

The EFL is effectively the same type of organisation. Clearly they can't disregard laws and regulations, but aside from that the rules of membership are that organisations call.

You sign up to it freely. That is why I had little empathy for Chansiri, you knew what the rules were, adhere to them.

And your last point is salient you can prove you have the funds for sure, but you can never stipulate it has to be applied thereto. 

[Andyben]

...and when the rules don't work or have been imposed by a minority to protect their own interests and restrict competition?

 

[mkowl]

1 hour ago, Andyben said:

...and when the rules don't work or have been imposed by a minority to protect their own interests and restrict competition?

 

Isn't that what City, Newcastle and Chelsea are now seeking to do 

[Andyben]

Quite the opposite 

[mkowl]

8 hours ago, Andyben said:

Quite the opposite 

I will disagree on that point. We have seen clubs in the past Chelsea and City effectively land bank young talented players. As you mentioned the rationale for doing this is not so much we are going to utilise these players more our rivals can't.

Are you saying in the absence of financial controls that similar strategies wouldn't be employed again. 

I don't suggest FFP is working as planned but it's also a necessary evil. If thrown to the wind then transfer fees and wages would spiral, knock on impact to EFL level where fans undoubtedly be asked to fill the funding gap. I appreciate with FFP that is happening anyway as clubs seek to eek out revenues.

I believe the EFL clubs are going to look at the 70% rule (wages to turnover) test at the forthcoming AGM. That does seem fairer (and in answer to Ty) not equality.

 

[Andyben]

33 minutes ago, mkowl said:

Are you saying in the absence of financial controls that similar strategies wouldn't be employed again. 

In the  absence of financial controls, they wouldn't have to.

They sign dozens of players, without any intention to make them first reamers,  simply to get loan fees and transfer fees to provide another income stream.

They could concentrate their resources in paying and bidding against each other for the absolute cream of the crop instead of signing  10 hoping 1 becomes first team and whoring out the other 9 to pay for Lukaku's wages

[mkowl]

22 minutes ago, Andyben said:

In the  absence of financial controls, they wouldn't have to.

They sign dozens of players, without any intention to make them first reamers,  simply to get loan fees and transfer fees to provide another income stream.

They could concentrate their resources in paying and bidding against each other for the absolute cream of the crop instead of signing  10 hoping 1 becomes first team and whoring out the other 9 to pay for Lukaku's wages

So shite for football as a whole - thanks for confirming 

[Andyben]

Why is it?

Surely them not hoovering up young talent that they'll never play is better?

Edited June 6 by Andyben

[Skamp]

Let the clubs spend what they want. It's their money

However, if they go into admin, then they lose any league place, not just get a points deduction. When Woolies called in the administrator, that was that.  Start right back at the bottom if you wish to start up again on Monday. And I'm talking non-league.

Players get out of their contracts for free and the others hoover up.

 

That'll sort it out.

[Ozzie]

5 hours ago, Skamp said:

Let the clubs spend what they want. It's their money

However, if they go into admin, then they lose any league place, not just get a points deduction. When Woolies called in the administrator, that was that.  Start right back at the bottom if you wish to start up again on Monday. And I'm talking non-league.

Players get out of their contracts for free and the others hoover up.

 

That'll sort it out.

Don't think that's fair on a club/ fans just starting again from scratch. Put more of fear into owners that want to have a go, if they fuck it up then their money has to have a risk to be gone.

Example, Brighton buys a player , £10M and wages are £4M per year over 5 years.

The £10M fee gets paid within x amount of days and the £20M wages are put into a club holding/ wages account that they cannot access. If the club can't afford to do that then it stops the foolish spending that they can't afford. This will  then limit the insane transfer fees and wages and in turn club will then be better run. Admin will be no more (hopefully) so no fear of Doris the cleaning lady just getting made redundant after 30 yrs and Bill the painter not getting paid for the work he's done on the stadium

[EastCraigsOwl]

17 hours ago, Ozzie said:

Example, Brighton buys a player , £10M and wages are £4M per year over 5 years.

The £10M fee gets paid within x amount of days and the £20M wages are put into a club holding/ wages account that they cannot access. If the club can't afford to do that then it stops the foolish spending that they can't afford.

Are you suggesting both the £10m and the £20m should be coughed up immediately? If so, that's just silly.

I can just about understand the logic re the transfer fee but the £4m p.a. wages are paid out via income in the particular years as part of the club's budget.

It would be like saying, if you wish to purchase a £50K car on HP over 3 years, you need to put said £50K (plus interest) into an account in order to prove you can afford it. If you could do that, there would be no need for the HP in the first place. If people can afford to keep up the repayments, they do so as normal (same with mortgages). If they can't, the car gets taken away or, in a footballing sense, the player gets sold.

[Ozzie]

On 07/06/2024 at 11:03, EastCraigsOwl said:

Are you suggesting both the £10m and the £20m should be coughed up immediately? If so, that's just silly.

I can just about understand the logic re the transfer fee but the £4m p.a. wages are paid out via income in the particular years as part of the club's budget.

It would be like saying, if you wish to purchase a £50K car on HP over 3 years, you need to put said £50K (plus interest) into an account in order to prove you can afford it. If you could do that, there would be no need for the HP in the first place. If people can afford to keep up the repayments, they do so as normal (same with mortgages). If they can't, the car gets taken away or, in a footballing sense, the player gets sold.

Nowt silly abart it, puts a stop to wild spending by clubs and em shoved into admin chasing one mans dream who just walks off not giving a fuck

[HoylandOwl]

Good discussion. Please do continue

[Tylluan]

Villa's owners have chipped in and said they were considering a legal challenge as PSR makes no sense and keeps the big club status quo rather than allow clubs to challenge it. 

They'll probably have to sell players like Douglas Luiz to keep in line even though they're in Europe 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cp33r2vjm2lo

Edited June 12 by Tylluan

[Andyben]

Restraint of Trade.

[Tylluan]

Problem Ratcliffe has with his logic is his team finished 8th last season and Chelsea were 10th

[Tewksbury]

I've been wondering if the new EFL Sky deal could actually be a move to head this off.

I've always said that the biggest draw to the top 6 or whatever is accessibility. Being on TV all the time means that it's easier to be a Man City fan than a local team because you can watch 30 games a year without leaving your house. It's easier, especially for young fans, especially ones without football supporting parents to support those teams. Unless you have someone to take you to games, and the money to do so, then you'll only see your local team 4-5 times per year so are driven to support the more widely shown teams. Because everyone else can watch the games too, you can also talk about it at work, school or whatever so you get invested.

Now, with half the Wednesday games on the basic Sky package and not spread over TNT/Sky/whoever, it's actually easier to support your local team as they'll be on TV more, there will be more local engagement as more will have seen the games.

With the option to actually watch your local team on a regular basis, I can actually see a move away from 'big 6' back to a more local support in the longer term.

[Andyben]

Why shouldn't they have more influence than Luton, Ipswich, demblades etc?

[mkowl]

2 minutes ago, Tewksbury said:

I've been wondering if the new EFL Sky deal could actually be a move to head this off.

I've always said that the biggest draw to the top 6 or whatever is accessibility. Being on TV all the time means that it's easier to be a Man City fan than a local team because you can watch 30 games a year without leaving your house. It's easier, especially for young fans, especially ones without football supporting parents to support those teams. Unless you have someone to take you to games, and the money to do so, then you'll only see your local team 4-5 times per year so are driven to support the more widely shown teams. Because everyone else can watch the games too, you can also talk about it at work, school or whatever so you get invested.

Now, with half the Wednesday games on the basic Sky package and not spread over TNT/Sky/whoever, it's actually easier to support your local team as they'll be on TV more, there will be more local engagement as more will have seen the games.

With the option to actually watch your local team on a regular basis, I can actually see a move away from 'big 6' back to a more local support in the longer term.

Interesting assertions, I agree if you get hooked at a young age then you are more likely to want to go to games and then get hooked even more.

But at the same time the constant exposure to stories relating to the top 6 leads to the rise of the joint supporters, those that have a Premier League side they "support".

I am always fascinated by the TV contracts and it's impact on the game and predicting said outcome. The new TV contract the obvious conclusion would be it would reduce attendances over time, but not sure it will

[mkowl]

2 minutes ago, Andyben said:

Why shouldn't they have more influence than Luton, Ipswich, demblades etc?

I suppose to at least continue the masquerade the big 6 don't get what they want all the time. 

I mean we can't be far from the scenario that the vested interest could vote to make the EPL a closed shop, citing the fact if you do join you can't compete and get immediately relegated, so let's stop that.

Do that then next up will be a NFL conference set up, overseas games etc. 

[Tewksbury]

40 minutes ago, mkowl said:

Interesting assertions, I agree if you get hooked at a young age then you are more likely to want to go to games and then get hooked even more.

But at the same time the constant exposure to stories relating to the top 6 leads to the rise of the joint supporters, those that have a Premier League side they "support".

I am always fascinated by the TV contracts and it's impact on the game and predicting said outcome. The new TV contract the obvious conclusion would be it would reduce attendances over time, but not sure it will

Those stories resonate because they know who the players are, they can put faces to names so have a connection.

Most young casual Wednesday fans probably don't have a clue what each player looks like, so have no connection. It's just a name. When John at school talks about Wednesday players they've seen that weekend, it's just a name, where kids can name most premier players just through having random games on at home. Now it's 'are you watching the Man U game tonight in Sky', in a year it could be 'are you watching the Wednesday game on sky'

Now they have a choice, a lot of homes will have the local game on rather than a random premier game, most homes in Sheffield have someone with at least a passing interest in one of the Sheffield clubs, as well as the attending fans watching away games which will bring in other viewers from within their homes.

There may be a slight drop in attendance to start with, but there could also be a rise in the longer term, especially in walk ups.

If handled correctly, this could be the move that brings local football back.