Wainy316 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Surely these payments wouldn’t count towards PSR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Disappointed but not surprised to see us listed as one of the clubs who blocked a better financial deal for the EFL clubs. **** the pyramid, we're alright Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 11 hours ago, Davkaus said: Disappointed but not surprised to see us listed as one of the clubs who blocked a better financial deal for the EFL clubs. **** the pyramid, we're alright Jack. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but why are you dissapointed? Isn't the deal taking money away from Aston Villa towards other clubs lower down? Isn't it like Tesco voting to funnel money to Co Op? Why do you think the businessowners might want to go for it? Due to the kindness of their hearts to fund a Shrewsbury player getting a transfer to Burton Albion? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 9 minutes ago, Mic09 said: I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but why are you dissapointed? Isn't the deal taking money away from Aston Villa towards other clubs lower down? Isn't it like Tesco voting to funnel money to Co Op? Why do you think the businessowners might want to go for it? Due to the kindness of their hearts to fund a Shrewsbury player getting a transfer to Burton Albion? Because football is a community game that has been destroyed by money and the selfish Premier League. Rules have already been changed so we can poach wonderkids for peanuts from smaller teams. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Mic09 said: I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but why are you dissapointed? Isn't the deal taking money away from Aston Villa towards other clubs lower down? Isn't it like Tesco voting to funnel money to Co Op? Why do you think the businessowners might want to go for it? Due to the kindness of their hearts to fund a Shrewsbury player getting a transfer to Burton Albion? Because football in the UK is an important community asset, it isn't just like any other business, and this is recognised both culturally and legally, which is why the government are looking to intervene if the clubs don't produce a satisfactory deal. The Premier League is now such a juggernaut with such grotesque wealth that it could probably survive without the grassroots or the football pyramid by continuing to hoard talent from across the globe, but we'd never have got our sport to this point without the rest of the English league structure. A healthy pyramid of clubs below us should ultimately be good for the top flight and the game as a whole, but the Premier League is happy to see it whither away Edited March 13 by Davkaus 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 36 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Because football in the UK is an important community asset, it isn't just like any other business, and this is recognised both culturally and legally, which is why the government are looking to intervene if the clubs don't produce a satisfactory deal. The Premier League is now such a juggernaut with such grotesque wealth that it could probably survive without the grassroots or the football pyramid by continuing to hoard talent from across the globe, but we'd never have got our sport to this point without the rest of the English league structure. A healthy pyramid of clubs below us should ultimately be good for the top flight and the game as a whole, but the Premier League is happy to see it whither away Sure, hence I see your arguments and very much sympathise with them. But as you mentioned yourself, the government looks to intervene precisely because it is unlikely Villa or Chelsea or any other ownership might want to take their money and just give it to lower league clubs. We do so already don't we? This is an improved deal. And from a business perspective (which I have no doubt is the perspective of NSWE) it is about Aston Villa having the most money to compete with the clubs at the top. And while I share your sentiment, it is their money so their thinking might be purely bottom line driven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted March 13 VT Supporter Share Posted March 13 50 minutes ago, Mic09 said: Sure, hence I see your arguments and very much sympathise with them. But as you mentioned yourself, the government looks to intervene precisely because it is unlikely Villa or Chelsea or any other ownership might want to take their money and just give it to lower league clubs. We do so already don't we? This is an improved deal. And from a business perspective (which I have no doubt is the perspective of NSWE) it is about Aston Villa having the most money to compete with the clubs at the top. And while I share your sentiment, it is their money so their thinking might be purely bottom line driven. But it's not just Aston Villa paying the clubs below us, right? We all pay an amount, I'm assuming based on something like income or league position. So the argument of having the most money to compete seems null and void - it "weakens" everybody else in the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 5 minutes ago, ozvillafan said: But it's not just Aston Villa paying the clubs below us, right? We all pay an amount, I'm assuming based on something like income or league position. So the argument of having the most money to compete seems null and void - it "weakens" everybody else in the same way. Sure. But why would NSWE want to 'weaken' us and everyone else? Especially as we will likely be competing in Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 The PL has reserves of over £1bn - why should clubs pay more? The faults fall on the PL and the EFL leadership. Don’t forget, Rick Parry was happy to let clubs fold to help the Premier League monopoly by changing the pyramid. It’s also entirely possible that the PL offered a bad deal. Yes, we should absolutely be doing more to help the footballing ecosystem, but it doesn’t mean accepting a bad deal. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 I don't disagree with the principle of it happening but I do disagree with how they do it At worst it should be a sliding scale, they could pinch some of the CL money (my preference) , they could adjust the prize money, they could make these payment sit outside of FFP, they could chip away at the fat cats at the FA and the PL or dip in to the huge profits Wembley makes for all for them I disagree that Burnley should pay the same as villa who should pay the same as man city Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 8 minutes ago, villa4europe said: I don't disagree with the principle of it happening but I do disagree with how they do it At worst it should be a sliding scale, they could pinch some of the CL money (my preference) , they could adjust the prize money, they could make these payment sit outside of FFP, they could chip away at the fat cats at the FA and the PL or dip in to the huge profits Wembley makes for all for them I disagree that Burnley should pay the same as villa who should pay the same as man city You mean to say these payments are included in FFP? That’s ridiculous if true. Why would clubs (us include) who are close to breaching FFP vote in favour of more expenditure that will limit our spending under FFP or result in a points deduction? No wonder the vote failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 8 minutes ago, duke313 said: You mean to say these payments are included in FFP? That’s ridiculous if true. Why would clubs (us include) who are close to breaching FFP vote in favour of more expenditure that will limit our spending under FFP or result in a points deduction? No wonder the vote failed. Unless I'm misunderstanding it? But if the answer was yes then I would straight away want us to vote no Also the PL could easily just pay this themselves and then deduct it from what they pay the teams, I'm guessing the TV money is paid to the PL who then divy it up across the 20 teams, just get the PL to pay the lump sum and then give the teams less... Why should each club make a payment? That makes no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 34 minutes ago, villa4europe said: Unless I'm misunderstanding it? But if the answer was yes then I would straight away want us to vote no Also the PL could easily just pay this themselves and then deduct it from what they pay the teams, I'm guessing the TV money is paid to the PL who then divy it up across the 20 teams, just get the PL to pay the lump sum and then give the teams less... Why should each club make a payment? That makes no sense Isn't the 'PL' the clubs themselves? Any such decision would have to be voted by 20 teams. Which in itself is silly because Sheffields and Burnley's have very different goals to Arsenals and Liverpools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 24 minutes ago, Mic09 said: Isn't the 'PL' the clubs themselves? Any such decision would have to be voted by 20 teams. Which in itself is silly because Sheffields and Burnley's have very different goals to Arsenals and Liverpools. They still exist as an entity that is owned by the 20 clubs My guess would be sky write a cheque to the PL for £5bn and then the PL write a cheque to all 20 clubs It would be easy enough for a cheque to go out to the EFL first and then the prize money gets adjusted or something on a sliding scale gets adjusted It's the fact that the proposal was a flat rate that's the problem imo It would be like your employer suggesting that everyone in the company should take a £200 a month pay cut rather than a % pay cut, it impacts different people in different ways Those who profit the most from the PL should give back the most Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 3 hours ago, Davkaus said: Because football in the UK is an important community asset, it isn't just like any other business, and this is recognised both culturally and legally, which is why the government are looking to intervene if the clubs don't produce a satisfactory deal. The Premier League is now such a juggernaut with such grotesque wealth that it could probably survive without the grassroots or the football pyramid by continuing to hoard talent from across the globe, but we'd never have got our sport to this point without the rest of the English league structure. A healthy pyramid of clubs below us should ultimately be good for the top flight and the game as a whole, but the Premier League is happy to see it whither away 3 hours ago, Mic09 said: Sure, hence I see your arguments and very much sympathise with them. But as you mentioned yourself, the government looks to intervene precisely because it is unlikely Villa or Chelsea or any other ownership might want to take their money and just give it to lower league clubs. We do so already don't we? This is an improved deal. And from a business perspective (which I have no doubt is the perspective of NSWE) it is about Aston Villa having the most money to compete with the clubs at the top. And while I share your sentiment, it is their money so their thinking might be purely bottom line driven. The government have previously *said* they will intervene, in the shape of a regulator. However, whether that actually happens before an election - and whether it would be a priority of a new government after one - is very much open to question, and I think you should read the Premier League's actions yesterday as a bet that the government will not, in fact, intervene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 (edited) 2 hours ago, villa4europe said: I don't disagree with the principle of it happening but I do disagree with how they do it At worst it should be a sliding scale, they could pinch some of the CL money (my preference) , they could adjust the prize money, they could make these payment sit outside of FFP, they could chip away at the fat cats at the FA and the PL or dip in to the huge profits Wembley makes for all for them I disagree that Burnley should pay the same as villa who should pay the same as man city That was actually part of the argument of some of the clubs who voted against it. They argued that the regulator is coming in because of the Super League 6 and these changes are being forced on them due to these 6 clubs. Therefore the ESL 6 should pay the majority of the increase. The debate and aborted vote was less about the principle of giving the lower leagues more money (it seems they all agree on that principle), and more about how much, who pays for it and how it is calculated. Edited March 13 by ender4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 3 hours ago, ozvillafan said: But it's not just Aston Villa paying the clubs below us, right? We all pay an amount, I'm assuming based on something like income or league position. So the argument of having the most money to compete seems null and void - it "weakens" everybody else in the same way. It doesn't weaken everyone in the same way. For Man City with a revenue of £700m per year, paying £16m to lower leagues is peanuts. They can simply get another fake sponsorship for £16m. For Bournemouth with a revenue of £160m, paying £16m to lower leagues is huge. It's the difference between staying alive or going bust. It also strengthens a rival like West Brom as they might be in the same league the next season. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 4 hours ago, The_Steve said: The PL has reserves of over £1bn - why should clubs pay more? The faults fall on the PL and the EFL leadership. Don’t forget, Rick Parry was happy to let clubs fold to help the Premier League monopoly by changing the pyramid. It’s also entirely possible that the PL offered a bad deal. Yes, we should absolutely be doing more to help the footballing ecosystem, but it doesn’t mean accepting a bad deal. It should just come from TV revenues. The PL clubs get an absolute shitload - just shave 5% off and distribute down the pyramid. But, still, very disappointing but (as @Davkaus says) not at all surprising that we're one of the clubs blocking the proposal. **** the fans, football is about money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Starmer will do something to play on his man of the people stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Cheering on the scum 6 in Europe so one of the non scum 6 clubs can get a Champions League spot is the ultimate mission of the failed Super League to show how needed they are I find it shameful people cheering these scumbags on in case we get 5th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts