Jump to content

Man City trigger the rebirth of the European Super League


Recommended Posts

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 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 🫡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 by Tylluan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by Andyben
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by Andyben
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 by Tylluan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...