6 + 2 Point Deductions

[BNJ1878]

Who cares if they are bringing in extra revenue through sponsorship, it’s money into the game, surely better than running clubs through debt and paying interest which is money out of the game.

Why should owners be discouraged from growing their business with their own money in favour of owners like the Glazers and Kenwright who buy the club on debt and get the club to pay back that debt and then spend zero letting the club decline but still able to cash out at huge profit.

In this particular case they don't need to 'grow their business.' They've been the dominant team of the past decade. The owners certainly don't need the business of Man City to support their other endeavours.

How many titles in a row do they need before the accept their cheating has gone far enough? Another 1? 3? 10?

The problem isn't sponsorship, it's linking spend to revenue under the guise of sustainability. Let's not kid ourselves, it's to protect the established media darlings. I'm pleased City have bloodied a few noses but the train is now out of control and the brakes are not slowing it down.

The prospect of anchoring total spend to a multiple of the lowest earning clubs TV revenue is the only way to compress the competition. Unfortunately the proposal of that multiple being x4.5 makes it pretty much meaningless and they'll continue to spend. If it started at 4.5 and dropped to X3 over say, 5 years we'd have a far more competitive league.

Whilst it's fun to say 'you lost the league at Goodison Park' it should be pretty much impossible to pinpoint where any one team lost the league. When both the leading teams win all but one of the last 15 or so games it makes a mockery of the 'best league in the world' claim.

Cutting the spend would eventually lead to league winners being crowned with 80/85 points at the most and make every fixture meaningful.

 

[msb]

I think they're suing the wrong governing body if so

It is about winning battles and setting precedents. Real can spend 750mill in La Liga, which means they can afford whoever they want. City need to make it possible for them to compete domestically at that level, to then win European comps more frequently.

At least that is my opinion!

 

[GoldenToffee]

Surely the whole 14 clubs needing to agree to pass new rules should make it incredibly easy for clubs to pass new laws that make it even tougher in City in light of their behaviour?

 

[Mashtray]

Lol, "tyranny of the majority"! I'm not sure they understand the meaning of the word "tyranny". I guess that's what happens when you're owned by actual tyrants.

Do they mean democracy

 

[kenada_blue]

Most successful teams made the most money. Won a title, more exposure, bigger sponsorship, bigger payouts.
Was all built on an owner who pumped money into it (majority local businessmen).

PL then let overseas billionaires with checkered histories take over (Roman, Venkys, Shiniwatara)

They allowed corporate investors to take over to bleed the cash cow (Glazers, Gillet and Hicks, now Bohley).

They then allowed states/countries to take over (City and Newcastle).

It's never been about who spent what and how. Like any successful entity it attracts the worst self centric kind with power. If you allow them to do what they want for a period of time like the PL did...then they will. Until is too late to fix it.

We're at that point where it's too late to fix it. They built a monster they can't kill when they opened the doors.

Basically its like anything that got privatised in the UK. Now the clubs are more powerful than the league, they're wanting to dictate the rules individually rather than a collective

 

[Terrarian]

I hope City get taken to the cleaners, it is because of them and Chelsea that these ridiculous rules were brought in, in the first place. Now they do everything in their mega rich power to try and stop being found guilty of breaching the very rules their spending made a reality.

City and the premier league can both GTF!!

What is happening now is disgraceful and has severely affected the integrity of the competition in my eyes. It is an utter disgrace that Us, Forest and potentially Leicester coming up have had points deductions and are still worried about further deductions while City just carry on lifting trophies, whilst everyone else tries and fails to catch up.

 

[Tin-Tin]

Im with City here. Hope they bring it all down.

 

[Jacko93]

Im with City here. Hope they bring it all down.

If City win this, the competition ceases to be a competition.

If they get beaten, there may be way to restore some sort of feeling of a league worth partaking in. The development of the EPL had at least some sort of basis in democracy. What City want is to be able to act in sport how they do in domestic politics.

Giving state backed teams the ability to effectively spend whatever they want, would be like me or you going into auction against Elon Musk, for something he really wants. Teams like Everton will be left with cast offs and undesirables, Teams could stockpile players and have 3 or 4 squads for different competitions. If they win this argument, they win all sporting arguments based upon the same principles of restruction of competition. They can effectively attempt to rewrite the rulebook in their favour.

39th game? We want it, and if you don't its a restriction of trade. To the courts.

50% of games abroad? We want it, and if you don't its a restriction of trade. To the courts.

Jib off FA cup.participation for anybody who's in Europe...... you get the jist.

Siding with City on this case, in my opinion is a VERY risky, and maybe naive move. Unless you think Everton shouldn't be competing alongside them of course.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

If City win this, the competition ceases to be a competition.

If they get beaten, there may be way to restore some sort of feeling of a league worth partaking in. The development of the EPL had at least some sort of basis in democracy. What City want is to be able to act in sport how they do in domestic politics.

Giving state backed teams the ability to effectively spend whatever they want, would be like me or you going into auction against again Elon Musk, when it's something he really wants. Teams like Everton will be left with cast offs and undesirables, Teams could stockpile players and have 3 or 4 squads for different competitions. If they win this argument, they win all sporting arguments based upon the same principles of restruction of competition. They can effectively attempt to rewrite the rulebook in their favour.

39th game? We want it, and if you don't its a restriction of trade. To the courts.

50% of games abroad? We want it, and if you don't its a restriction of trade. To the courts.

Jib off FA cup.participation for anybody who's in Europe...... you get the jist.

Siding with City on this case, in my opinion is a VERY risky, and maybe naive move. Unless you think Everton shouldn't be competing alongside them of course.

I think the answer is a transfer cap.

No team can spend more than £Xm per season.

It's not a perfect solution, and it would diminish Prem vs other leagues if other leagues didn't have it but competition will only be that, when every team can only spend up to a set amount (that isn't sliding by income).

The current model incentivises shenanigans like hotels sold, and encourages clubs to have to fleece fans to be able to spend more in the transfer market.

 

[allen]

Im with City here. Hope they bring it all down.

And replace it with a league where City can spend whatever they want?

As much of a mess as the Premier League is, giving City what they want isn't a solution.

 

[Jacko93]

I think the answer is a transfer cap.

No team can spend more than £Xm per season.

It's not a perfect solution, and it would diminish Prem vs other leagues if other leagues didn't have it but competition will only be that, when every team can only spend up to a set amount (that isn't sliding by income).

The current model incentivises shenanigans like hotels sold, and encourages clubs to have to fleece fans to be able to spend more in the transfer market.

I agree entirely with this. The only way to create actual parity is use the exact same figures for restrictions. Any team can spend, say £200m per year on fees, wages, agents etc. regardless of how that is amortised. Even new contracts for that 12 month period would be included so they can't sign for 1 year on £50kpw then increase to £350kpw in year 2.

The PSR controls would be that the club needs to have finances that enable the existence of the club for x number of years. Its a much more easily measure figure for all clubs then.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

I agree entirely with this. The only way to create actual parity is use the exact same figures for restrictions. Any team can spend, say £200m per year on fees, wages, agents etc. regardless of how that is amortised. Even new contracts for that 12 month period would be included so they can't sign for 1 year on £50kpw then increase to £350kpw in year 2.

The PSR controls would be that the club needs to have finances that enable the existence of the club for x number of years. Its a much more easily measure figure for all clubs then.

I think the Prem brought it all in to satisfy Man Utd/Liverpool, when Man City got their money?

A way to keep the status quo under the guise of sustainability.

Bend something too much and it breaks - the Premier League have bent things too much.

I think the crux of it all is PL are terrified the top clubs will jib them off/own TV deals and so they're continually trying to keep them happy. Man City is the massive spanner in the works.

 

[neil999]

I think the answer is a transfer cap.

No team can spend more than £Xm per season.

It's not a perfect solution, and it would diminish Prem vs other leagues if other leagues didn't have it but competition will only be that, when every team can only spend up to a set amount (that isn't sliding by income).

The current model incentivises shenanigans like hotels sold, and encourages clubs to have to fleece fans to be able to spend more in the transfer market.

Can see big clubs doing weird things with loans, raya at arsenal for example

 

[allen]

I think the answer is a transfer cap.

No team can spend more than £Xm per season.

It's not a perfect solution, and it would diminish Prem vs other leagues if other leagues didn't have it but competition will only be that, when every team can only spend up to a set amount (that isn't sliding by income).

The current model incentivises shenanigans like hotels sold, and encourages clubs to have to fleece fans to be able to spend more in the transfer market.

That highlighted passage is why it wouldn't be voted through. There's too much risk it destroys 'the product'.

It'd have to be imposed - either by the government (which I think is unlikely) or by UEFA / FIFA (and I think that's also unlikely).

American professional sports have been able to get the whole drafting system working chiefly because there's never been any international competition. It's just not the same with football.

Even if this was UEFA-wide, you can imagine the Saudis and others - maybe even MLS - leaping at the opportunity to buy up all the best players.

It's the sort of thing that would need to be established at the FIFA-level. But as we know, they do nothing for the good of the game.

 

[ChrisPW75]

I predict City will lose the arbitration because its a members club that they originally signed up for.

They will then issue a civil case citing that the rules of the league breaches Competition Law, which will given them recourse to the civil case. That may take 1-2 years before it is resolved.

Because of the appeal, the league will have no option but to adjourn the 115 charges hearing in the Autumn until after the legal case.

This will result in a large part of the league setting up a new Super league because they are upset with the behavior of City.