Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Everton Summer 2024 Transfer Thread

blueblue said:
I was talking to a Liverpool supporter yesterday who wants everything to stay exactly as it is. Obviously he hates Man City and everything about them.

I told him that I hope City win their case and blows the whole current structure wide open. The current system allows maybe three or four clubs to be successful year after year. Even if we got a fantastically wealthy new owner we still could not compete because of the current rules , which makes no sense to me. He was talking about a food chain in football and my reply is that the food chain has been artificially created by the current rules.

If City win their case there will be mayhem but maybe a fairer system will eventually grow from that.

We are looking at the sale of Godfrey and DCL almost as good thing because it will help with PSR and that is lunacy. We should not be forced to sell our better players because of an artificial rule which almost definitely means the clubs that can afford to buy our best players are those who benefit most from these rules.
Click to expand...

we aren’t selling DCL
 
JimmyJeffers said:
We’d end up like the French league, with 2 state owned super clubs. City are a disgrace and have cheated and obstructed any sort of punishment. How anyone can want them to win is bananas.
Click to expand...

I get where you’re coming from, but I think there’s a bit more nuance to this situation. The idea of ending up like the French league with just a couple of super clubs is definitely a concern. However, the current system isn't exactly fostering a broad competition either. We already have a scenario where only a few clubs can realistically compete for the top honors year after year, which isn't much different from the situation in France.

If City winning their case forces a re-evaluation and leads to a fairer system, that could be a positive outcome in the long run.


We need to address the root causes of the financial disparities in football, not just focus on the symptoms. City winning their case might be a necessary disruption to challenge the status quo and push for a fairer, more competitive landscape in the long term.
 
Norwegian Cow said:
it's not surprising coming from a Liverpool supporter. Of course, they'd want everything to stay exactly as it is – they've benefited from the current system.

The idea that there's a "natural" food chain in football is a myth. The current rules have created an artificial hierarchy where only a select few clubs can dominate year after year. This setup stifles competition and makes it nearly impossible for other teams to break through.

If City win their case, it could indeed blow the whole structure wide open, and honestly, that might be exactly what football needs. Yes, there would be mayhem, but sometimes disruption is necessary to dismantle an unfair system. A fairer, more competitive landscape would eventually emerge from that chaos, benefiting the sport as a whole.

It's frustrating to hear a Liverpool fan talk about maintaining a system that serves their interests while ignoring the broader impact on football. The current setup doesn't just favor the richest clubs; it ensures that only a few can succeed, year in and year out, making the leagues predictable and less exciting.

A shake-up could force a re-evaluation of the rules and potentially lead to a more equitable system where success is about more than just having the deepest pockets. It would make leagues more unpredictable and engaging, giving all clubs a real chance to compete at the highest level.
Click to expand...
Things have got worse recently of course but there obviously is a food chain in football and there always has been only 24 teams have ever been champions of england in 135 years.
 

Norwegian Cow said:
I get where you’re coming from, but I think there’s a bit more nuance to this situation. The idea of ending up like the French league with just a couple of super clubs is definitely a concern. However, the current system isn't exactly fostering a broad competition either. We already have a scenario where only a few clubs can realistically compete for the top honors year after year, which isn't much different from the situation in France.

If City winning their case forces a re-evaluation and leads to a fairer system, that could be a positive outcome in the long run.


We need to address the root causes of the financial disparities in football, not just focus on the symptoms. City winning their case might be a necessary disruption to challenge the status quo and push for a fairer, more competitive landscape in the long term.
Click to expand...
City are doing what’s best for them not for us. If they win it will not lead to a fairer system. It will be even worse.
 
JimmyK said:
Things have got worse recently of course but there obviously is a food chain in football and there always has been only 24 teams have ever been champions of england in 135 years.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, and it's true that historically, only a limited number of teams have won the English championship. However, there are several factors to consider when debating this "food chain" in football.

Firstly, while there has always been a hierarchy in football, the financial disparities have become much more pronounced in recent years. The gap between the richest clubs and the rest has widened significantly, largely due to the influx of enormous amounts of money from broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals, and wealthy owners. This has made it increasingly difficult for smaller clubs to compete.

Historically, the distribution of league titles was somewhat more fluid. Clubs like Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa, and Blackburn Rovers have had their moments of glory in the past. Today, the financial clout of a handful of clubs makes it almost impossible for such surprises to happen. The system now heavily favors those at the top, making the notion of a "food chain" more rigid than it ever was.

Secondly, the current rules and financial fair play regulations are designed in a way that preserves the status quo. These regulations, while intended to promote financial health and fair competition, often end up entrenching the power of already wealthy clubs. Clubs that are trying to break into the top tier face significant hurdles, not just in terms of financial competition but also regulatory barriers.

While only 24 teams have ever been champions of England, the number of genuinely competitive clubs at any given time used to be larger. The current era is characterized by a near-monopoly of a few clubs, reducing the competitive diversity that makes football exciting.

I agree that there has always been a hierarchy, but the degree to which money dictates success has intensified.
 
Norwegian Cow said:
I understand your point, and it's true that historically, only a limited number of teams have won the English championship. However, there are several factors to consider when debating this "food chain" in football.

Firstly, while there has always been a hierarchy in football, the financial disparities have become much more pronounced in recent years. The gap between the richest clubs and the rest has widened significantly, largely due to the influx of enormous amounts of money from broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals, and wealthy owners. This has made it increasingly difficult for smaller clubs to compete.

Historically, the distribution of league titles was somewhat more fluid. Clubs like Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa, and Blackburn Rovers have had their moments of glory in the past. Today, the financial clout of a handful of clubs makes it almost impossible for such surprises to happen. The system now heavily favors those at the top, making the notion of a "food chain" more rigid than it ever was.

Secondly, the current rules and financial fair play regulations are designed in a way that preserves the status quo. These regulations, while intended to promote financial health and fair competition, often end up entrenching the power of already wealthy clubs. Clubs that are trying to break into the top tier face significant hurdles, not just in terms of financial competition but also regulatory barriers.

While only 24 teams have ever been champions of England, the number of genuinely competitive clubs at any given time used to be larger. The current era is characterized by a near-monopoly of a few clubs, reducing the competitive diversity that makes football exciting.

I agree that there has always been a hierarchy, but the degree to which money dictates success has intensified.
Click to expand...
It's been globalised like everything else.

I don't really see why Man City, or whoever else, should be stopped for spending their way to the top - other clubs have done the same in the past - eventually they'll fall away.

What is worse is this 'pulling up the ladder' stuff that tries to keep them there - it's anti-competitive.
 

JimmyJeffers said:
We’d end up like the French league, with 2 state owned super clubs. City are a disgrace and have cheated and obstructed any sort of punishment. How anyone can want them to win is bananas.
Click to expand...
The Premier league can't allow that to happen because very quickly the television deals would disappear.

I would ask the question how anyone could want the current system to continue where the rules are totally skewed in favour of a few.
 
Davey_g08 said:
DCL: spends 2 years missing sitters left, right and centre

Also DCL: "I won't sign a new contract, I think I deserve a bigger club".
Click to expand...
two years feeding off absolute scraps, doing the work of two men, waiting for non-existent support, battling injuries and still getting all the professional plaudits - there is a reason he is every manager, including the great Carlo, has him 1st name on the teamsheet.
 
JimmyJeffers said:
City are doing what’s best for them not for us. If they win it will not lead to a fairer system. It will be even worse.
Click to expand...
I get your point, and it's true that City is primarily looking out for their own interests. However, the current system is already heavily skewed in favor of a few clubs. If City’s case leads to a reevaluation of the rules, it could potentially open the door for broader reforms that might address the financial disparities and create a fairer competition. It's a risky and uncertain path, but sometimes disruption is necessary to push for meaningful change.
 
blueblue said:
The Premier league can't allow that to happen because very quickly the television deals would disappear.

I would ask the question how anyone could want the current system to continue where the rules are totally skewed in favour of a few.
Click to expand...
Villa broke top 4 this season and aren’t considered one of the big teams. Newcastle will be there or there abouts. With smart investment and management both can break through.

The reason we have not broken in to the top teams has nothing to do with financial fair play and everything to do with gross mismanagement. If we had been smart we should be in the top 6.

Not sure why anyone thinks if the rules are changed further to benefit the likes of city that we Will somehow benefit.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top