The Sinister 6 - Premier League Owners Charter

[Goat]

If success was rewarded they'd not be in 12th now.

If by rewards success you mean "winning gets you the trophy" than that is not a unique feature of football fyi.

If you win a trophy you get rewarded, if you have a good season and finish high in the league, you get rewarded.

People just like to project, Everton arent garbage cos of the big 6, Sky, UEFA, Boris Johnson, Maggie Thatcher or indeed Heysel, we are garbage cos we made terrible football and business decisions.

 

[anton66]

Easy answer for the PL. if you don’t sign the charter, you start the season on minus 20 points.

 

[TheBigIguana]

If you win a trophy you get rewarded, if you have a good season and finish high in the league, you get rewarded.

People just like to project, Everton arent garbage cos of the big 6, Sky, UEFA, Boris Johnson, Maggie Thatcher or indeed Heysel, we are garbage cos we made terrible football and business decisions.

I mean I'm in here using Watford as an example not Everton because genuinely I don't really care if Everton are rewarded here or not, I just can't stand a system that exists so that 10 to 12 clubs can thrive and the rest can make up the numbers. I get that some people are fine with going the game, going to the pub and enjoying themselves which is completely fine and respectable. I'm a fan who like the sport and competition and currently football has a system that falls well short.

So while yes, often being good gets rewarded (but also ask Spurs if that is really true) the simple fact is more than anything there is a locked in hierarchy of clubs that can be terrible and have no consequences (United) and ones that can do close to everything right just to finish 5th (West Ham). Sorry for thinking that isn't a fair system of "competition."

 

[Goat]

I mean I'm in here using Watford as an example not Everton because genuinely I don't really care if Everton are rewarded here or not, I just can't stand a system that exists so that 10 to 12 clubs can thrive and the rest can make up the numbers. I get that some people are fine with going the game, going to the pub and enjoying themselves which is completely fine and respectable. I'm a fan who like the sport and competition and currently football has a system that falls well short.

So while yes, often being good gets rewarded (but also ask Spurs if that is really true) the simple fact is more than anything there is a locked in hierarchy of clubs that can be terrible and have no consequences (United) and ones that can do close to everything right just to finish 5th (West Ham). Sorry for thinking that isn't a fair system of "competition."

In your world West Ham cant compete, cos they are restricted, yet there they are, competing.

For me sport isnt fair, perception is what helps Liverpool maintain 1 of the best home records in the world and im honestly ok with that, teams like Everton, West Ham, Watford simply need to do better.

 

[TheBigIguana]

In your world West Ham cant compete, cos they are restricted, yet there they are, competing.

For me sport isnt fair, perception is what helps Liverpool maintain 1 of the best home records in the world.

This is how warped football is, West Ham are 22 points off winning the title and they're competing.

An absolute joke.

 

[Goat]

This is how warped football is, West Ham are 22 points off winning the title and they're competing.

An absolute joke.

Not bad for a team fighting relegation 2 years ago.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Not bad for a team fighting relegation 2 years ago.

The thing is, and I think you know this and are being purposefully obtuse, there is essentially no path to anything more than this for them.

I think that's bad. If you disagree whatever.

 

[ClausThomsen]

I mean I'm in here using Watford as an example not Everton because genuinely I don't really care if Everton are rewarded here or not, I just can't stand a system that exists so that 10 to 12 clubs can thrive and the rest can make up the numbers. I get that some people are fine with going the game, going to the pub and enjoying themselves which is completely fine and respectable. I'm a fan who like the sport and competition and currently football has a system that falls well short.

So while yes, often being good gets rewarded (but also ask Spurs if that is really true) the simple fact is more than anything there is a locked in hierarchy of clubs that can be terrible and have no consequences (United) and ones that can do close to everything right just to finish 5th (West Ham). Sorry for thinking that isn't a fair system of "competition."

Isn't that an example that Man Utd's "terrible" is better than other teams doing everything right. And there aren't any sides outside of Man City who could argue that they are doing "everything right". Football isn't unique in this - teams with consistently huge resources tend to do better over time provided they don't make relentless appalling decisions. Man Utd are a side who now consistently fall short of being top of the league but they haven't made consistently *terrible* decisions or not invested in so far as putting out a football side that can compete for a top 4 position.

They have made consistently terrible decisions in regards to winning titles and CL trophies which is where a club needs to do nearly *everything* right. They still have a squad of exceptionally good footballers when taken in the context of the league. There are no "terrible" players in that side. Most of their players would get solid game time at clubs below them. Even their abysmal flops can sometimes be more than good enough to stroll into the midfield of other teams down the East Lancs.

The time Leicester did everything right, and everything went right for them they were amply rewarded with a PL Winners title and a place in the Champions League the following season. The subsequent years they've got things wrong and have gone back towards upper/mid table.

It's professional sport. The professional part is always going to skew things towards resource rich clubs - same as pretty much any other competition.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Isn't that an example that Man Utd's "terrible" is better than other teams doing everything right. And there aren't any sides outside of Man City who could argue that they are doing "everything right". Football isn't unique in this - teams with consistently huge resources tend to do better over time provided they don't make relentless appalling decisions. Man Utd are a side who now consistently fall short of being top of the league but they haven't made consistently *terrible* decisions or not invested in so far as putting out a football side that can compete for a top 4 position.

They have made consistently terrible decisions in regards to winning titles and CL trophies which is where a club needs to do nearly *everything* right. They still have a squad of exceptionally good footballers when taken in the context of the league. There are no "terrible" players in that side. Most of their players would get solid game time at clubs below them. Even their abysmal flops can sometimes be more than good enough to stroll into the midfield of other teams down the East Lancs.

The time Leicester did everything right, and everything went right for them they were amply rewarded with a PL Winners title and a place in the Champions League the following season. The subsequent years they've got things wrong and have gone back towards upper/mid table.

It's professional sport. The professional part is always going to skew things towards resource rich clubs - same as pretty much any other competition.

There are plenty of other sports that do not operate like this. Not just American sports either.

My point is more about room for error. If we're talking about winning trophies you've got four clubs with leeway to majority screw up for years on end and be around the trophies still while everyone else basically has to put extended runs of perfection together just to have an outside chance. Again it isn't like this everywhere.

 

[barneygumble]

Add Newcastle to the list and automatically they’ve got the extra vote allowed to veto any decision.

Very, very concerning indeed.

 

[ClausThomsen]

There are plenty of other sports that do not operate like this. Not just American sports either.

My point is more about room for error. If we're talking about winning trophies you've got four clubs with leeway to majority screw up for years on end and be around the trophies still while everyone else basically has to put extended runs of perfection together just to have an outside chance. Again it isn't like this everywhere.

Who has screwed up for years on end to the extent they aren't good enough to compete for Top 4 and domestic trophies.

Utd have screwed up consistently from their PL domination years and as such they nowhere near a title challenging side. That's a drop off and clear evidence. The fact they can absorb that and still be good enough to float around the Top 4 and pick up the odd bits of silverware is because they haven't screwed up to a that extent. They still buy excellent players, still have an excellent academy and are still very good at making money - an essential resource.

City had to put together an extended period of doing things as well as possible to put themselves in the position they are now. If they screwed up as consistently for as extended period they'd be nowhere near their current levels.

The RS are another example who had to get everything right to put themselves in their current position. Financial performance, recruitment on and off field and another excellent Academy system. Their losing run a while back showed how dangerous even a small blip can be and it took an extraordinary run to get themselves back in the CL that year. Again, if they spent as long getting things wrong as they did being pretty much excellent in their decision making they'd be in serious trouble.

The same can be said for Chelsea. They get things right so often that their screw-ups are blips and quickly put right. Mercilessly so.

I'm not sure what your counter-proposal is. Punish succesful sides? Subsequently put restrictive financial caps on sides who win a trophy?

 

[TheBigIguana]

Who has screwed up for years on end to the extent they aren't good enough to compete for Top 4 and domestic trophies.

Utd have screwed up consistently from their PL domination years and as such they nowhere near a title challenging side. That's a drop off and clear evidence. The fact they can absorb that and still be good enough to float around the Top 4 and pick up the odd bits of silverware is because they haven't screwed up to a that extent. They still buy excellent players, still have an excellent academy and are still very good at making money - an essential resource.

City had to put together an extended period of doing things as well as possible to put themselves in the position they are now. If they screwed up as consistently for as extended period they'd be nowhere near their current levels.

The RS are another example who had to get everything right to put themselves in their current position. Financial performance, recruitment on and off field and another excellent Academy system. Their losing run a while back showed how dangerous even a small blip can be and it took an extraordinary run to get themselves back in the CL that year. Again, if they spent as long getting things wrong as they did being pretty much excellent in their decision making they'd be in serious trouble.

The same can be said for Chelsea. They get things right so often that their screw-ups are blips and quickly put right. Mercilessly so.

I'm not sure what your counter-proposal is. Punish succesful sides? Subsequently put restrictive financial caps on sides who win a trophy?

Just a salary cap. It isn't hard. Good teams can still be good. But they'll be punished when they aren't. And up and coming teams won't automatically get ripped apart.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Who has screwed up for years on end to the extent they aren't good enough to compete for Top 4 and domestic trophies.

Utd have screwed up consistently from their PL domination years and as such they nowhere near a title challenging side. That's a drop off and clear evidence. The fact they can absorb that and still be good enough to float around the Top 4 and pick up the odd bits of silverware is because they haven't screwed up to a that extent. They still buy excellent players, still have an excellent academy and are still very good at making money - an essential resource.

City had to put together an extended period of doing things as well as possible to put themselves in the position they are now. If they screwed up as consistently for as extended period they'd be nowhere near their current levels.

The RS are another example who had to get everything right to put themselves in their current position. Financial performance, recruitment on and off field and another excellent Academy system. Their losing run a while back showed how dangerous even a small blip can be and it took an extraordinary run to get themselves back in the CL that year. Again, if they spent as long getting things wrong as they did being pretty much excellent in their decision making they'd be in serious trouble.

The same can be said for Chelsea. They get things right so often that their screw-ups are blips and quickly put right. Mercilessly so.

I'm not sure what your counter-proposal is. Punish succesful sides? Subsequently put restrictive financial caps on sides who win a trophy?

The reason for that is they can spend whatever it takes to keep pushing top 4.

Clubs like Everton cant do that without needing to go 1-2 summers spending £1.7 million or needing to sell a good player to bring 1-2 others in.

The whole system is corrupt mate.

 

[EverTheOptimist]

Add Newcastle to the list and automatically they’ve got the extra vote allowed to veto any decision.

Very, very concerning indeed.

Yeah seen that on Twitter, already Newcastle are lining up with those clubs, maybe they'll replace Spurs.

 

[chrismpw]

This isnt sport. Kick them out of the league.

Away fans should boycott these clubs grounds (and home fans who like competition) - it would at least make the greedy snakes think and send a strong message.