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.

  • Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Man City to sue PL

Status
Not open for further replies.
hallamblue said:
Football has always allowed unlimited spending, it's only changed very recently. I don't agree with faking sponsorship deals but I don't see why clubs can't spend whatever they like on players if they can afford it.
Click to expand...
The problem was that it was reaching a tipping point where some clubs were spending more than they could sustain on the whim of owners who then got bored and walked off leaving clubs saddled with those debts. Long established clubs were going to the wall lower down the pyramid and the PL were worried about that creeping up into the top flight.
 
DanB90 said:
Wouldn’t put it past them.

They were all wanking themselves silly down the pier head and shooting fireworks at the liver building after they won a *title nobody seen them win.
Click to expand...
so if a tree falls in an uninhabited woods, the philosophers amongst us will claim it never happened. So, if a *championship was won in an uninhabited stadium, it never happened.

No need to thank me.
 
ClausThomsen said:
The problem was that it was reaching a tipping point where some clubs were spending more than they could sustain on the whim of owners who then got bored and walked off leaving clubs saddled with those debts. Long established clubs were going to the wall lower down the pyramid and the PL were worried about that creeping up into the top flight.
Click to expand...
So just have a rule where owners have to gift the money to the clubs and it can't go in the books if the club or be borrowed against any of the club's assets.
 
hallamblue said:
So just have a rule where owners have to gift the money to the clubs and it can't go in the books if the club or be borrowed against any of the club's assets.
Click to expand...
Do you mean give the option to inject capital as a gift? I can't see many owners taking up that option. Sign player X for £100M and then you're also personally on the hook for his £300k p/w wages over the next 5 years....plus bonuses. There's a slight chance of some form of that working if you want a league solely owned by states for sportswashing purposes.

Anyone putting serious money into the modern game is doing it for a reason and that reason is generally not purely a footballing one.

It doesn't really solve the issue of helping protect what are long established community institutions against the financial impact of unforeseen events or simple bad decision making.
 

ClausThomsen said:
Do you mean give the option to inject capital as a gift? I can't see many owners taking up that option. Sign player X for £100M and then you're also personally on the hook for his £300k p/w wages over the next 5 years....plus bonuses. There's a slight chance of some form of that working if you want a league solely owned by states for sportswashing purposes.

Anyone putting serious money into the modern game is doing it for a reason and that reason is generally not purely a footballing one.

It doesn't really solve the issue of helping protect what are long established community institutions against the financial impact of unforeseen events or simple bad decision making.
Click to expand...
We have 2 options,you either let people spend money on football clubs or you allow Man United and the rs to spend twice as much as every other team due to their vast armies of armchair supporters.
 
hallamblue said:
We have 2 options,you either let people spend money on football clubs or you allow Man United and the rs to spend twice as much as every other team due to their vast armies of armchair supporters.
Click to expand...
There are more then two options, @Saint Domingo had a good post on that recently but can't be bothered searching for it.

Of the options letting owners spend what they want is what almost all owners will keep voting in favour of.

And that is the issue. The control is with the clubs. They decide everything and if you allow them to continue to dictate based on selfish reasons the game will continue to get worse.

We need government intervention to regulate the game and start imposing spending and wage caps on the game.

I know it won't happen but you can see without change the gap between the top clubs and other premier league clubs will continue to widen.

And not even considering the EFL clubs who are getting drip fed and who are now struggling to compete once promoted to the Prem.
 
hallamblue said:
We have 2 options,you either let people spend money on football clubs or you allow Man United and the rs to spend twice as much as every other team due to their vast armies of armchair supporters.
Click to expand...
People are allowed to spend money on football clubs. There's no rule that says they can't. Some clubs generate more than others which has always been the way in professional football and would still be the way with unrestricted spending.

State backed oil rich clubs will dominate in your scenario. PSG in France levels of dominance. They'd absolutely dwarf any spending the likes of Man Utd could currently finance. I don't know where the others are getting similar money from without expecting a financial return other than sportswashing regimes.
 
ClausThomsen said:
People are allowed to spend money on football clubs. There's no rule that says they can't. Some clubs generate more than others which has always been the way in professional football and would still be the way with unrestricted spending.

State backed oil rich clubs will dominate in your scenario. PSG in France levels of dominance. They'd absolutely dwarf any spending the likes of Man Utd could currently finance. I don't know where the others are getting similar money from without expecting a financial return other than sportswashing regimes.
Click to expand...
It's only the equivalent of Jack Walker back in the day. If they invest in the infrastructure or the club and don't leave it in unsustainable debt I don't see the issue. Theoretically states aren't allowed to own clubs so if they don't want it to happen, the Premier League could regulate properly or the government could bring in a regulator. Personally I think we should have a salary cap like the US sports but it's already been shown that the player's unions will sue if that road is taken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DP1
Sean Ashley said:
There are more then two options, @Saint Domingo had a good post on that recently but can't be bothered searching for it.

Of the options letting owners spend what they want is what almost all owners will keep voting in favour of.

And that is the issue. The control is with the clubs. They decide everything and if you allow them to continue to dictate based on selfish reasons the game will continue to get worse.

We need government intervention to regulate the game and start imposing spending and wage caps on the game.

I know it won't happen but you can see without change the gap between the top clubs and other premier league clubs will continue to widen.

And not even considering the EFL clubs who are getting drip fed and who are now struggling to compete once promoted to the Prem.
Click to expand...

Rules of capitalism will apply in football as they do everywhere. The big will just get bigger and horde all resources. We’re already seeing multi club models, how long before we have feeder clubs in the lower leagues being owned by the super rich sky 6. We need regulation to create and maintain a level playing field.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top