Villa_Vids Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 Alternatively, we may have a similar base deal to Newcastle that the Premier League have deemed as "inflated" due to Nassef's links with adidas. According to the APT rules - clubs have to prove commercial deals with companies with links to their owners are "financially justifiable". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 Only two clubs out of the current 20 teams aren’t owned by dollar billionaires and they should be allowed to fund their clubs how they see fit without saddling that spending on the clubs… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 8 minutes ago, Villa_Vids said: Alternatively, we may have a similar base deal to Newcastle that the Premier League have deemed as "inflated" due to Nassef's links with adidas. According to the APT rules - clubs have to prove commercial deals with companies with links to their owners are "financially justifiable". Well we would just point to Newcastle (a non-CL club) and that if we (a CL club) are only getting the same as them, then our deal is actually undervalued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Delphinho123 Posted June 11 Popular Post Share Posted June 11 I agree with a fairer league and I don’t agree with the current PSR set up. It’s a farce. We should be allowed to spend what Man Utd / Liverpool spend. If that’s capped, fine, but no club should be a billion dollars in debt and be allowed to spend 5 times as much as us. Rules and regulations are fine as long as they are fair for everybody. 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 1 minute ago, Delphinho123 said: I agree with a fairer league and I don’t agree with the current PSR set up. It’s a farce. We should be allowed to spend what Man Utd / Liverpool spend. If that’s capped, fine, but no club should be a billion dollars in debt and be allowed to spend 5 times as much as us. Rules and regulations are fine as long as they are fair for everybody. 100% We have rules that link revenue to spending which isn't that daft But then you then have a competition that gives 4 teams up to £120m more than the other 16 per season, the TV deal means that teams get £2m per appearance and we have sky/bt putting certain teams on TV 15 times more than other teams It's rigged as **** 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted June 11 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11 9 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said: I agree with a fairer league and I don’t agree with the current PSR set up. It’s a farce. We should be allowed to spend what Man Utd / Liverpool spend. If that’s capped, fine, but no club should be a billion dollars in debt and be allowed to spend 5 times as much as us. Rules and regulations are fine as long as they are fair for everybody. Owners should be allowed to spend whatever they want to spend as long as it's not putting debt on the club. Put the debt on the owner and make them personally liable for it. Force owner's to put money into escrow with an independent third party to cover any debts they're putting on the club. Clubs won't go bankrupt and owner's are free to invest. Then prohibit nation states from owning club's and putting undue influence on the government so that they get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rds1983 said: Owners should be allowed to spend whatever they want to spend as long as it's not putting debt on the club. Put the debt on the owner and make them personally liable for it. Force owner's to put money into escrow with an independent third party to cover any debts they're putting on the club. Clubs won't go bankrupt and owner's are free to invest. Then prohibit nation states from owning club's and putting undue influence on the government so that they get involved. Agree with everything but the last paragraph - that’s city’s argument that they are being discriminated against and it’s far too late to ban nation state ownership. They should be free to invest where they like and the Uk economy is propped up by it. I hope we do form an alliance with Citeh & tear down the shackles of arbitrary paper accounting. **** the league and ffp / psr its needs a challenging and destroying so the unfair advantages are removed. It’s driven by keeping the poorer run big clubs top of the pile pure and simples. We have two billionaires supported by a subsidiary of Comcast so I don’t fear nation state ownership. Edited June 11 by thabucks 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 19 minutes ago, thabucks said: Agree with everything but the last paragraph - that’s city’s argument that they are being discriminated against and it’s far too late to ban nation state ownership. They should be free to invest where they like and the Uk economy is propped up by it. I hope we do form an alliance with Citeh & tear down the shackles of arbitrary paper accounting. **** the league and ffp / psr its needs a challenging and destroying so the unfair advantages are removed. It’s driven by keeping the poorer run big clubs top of the pile pure and simples. We have two billionaires supported by a subsidiary of Comcast so I don’t fear nation state ownership. But our owners can't spend a bottomless pit, and when they have to stop, and city or Newcastle don't, we're left falling down the pile until they sell us. Cap it then no matter how much money they have, they can't spend it and everyone is limited to the same ceiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villa_Vids Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) 15 minutes ago, MrBlack said: But our owners can't spend a bottomless pit, and when they have to stop, and city or Newcastle don't, we're left falling down the pile until they sell us. Cap it then no matter how much money they have, they can't spend it and everyone is limited to the same ceiling. NS just wants to be able to invest more into the sporting side of the club, not spend, spend, spend. Man Utd spent millions in the 90s growing their brand globally, yet we are denied the same chance. Edited June 11 by Villa_Vids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 4 minutes ago, Villa_Vids said: NS just wants to be able to invest more into the sporting side of the club, not spend, spend, spend. Man Utd spent millions in the 90s growing their band globally, yet we are denied the same chance. I know. But calling for all limits to be lifted when a state owns a club is insanity. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 5 minutes ago, MrBlack said: But our owners can't spend a bottomless pit, and when they have to stop, and city or Newcastle don't, we're left falling down the pile until they sell us. Cap it then no matter how much money they have, they can't spend it and everyone is limited to the same ceiling. The Saudis have a 170km line they’re planning on building that’s quoted to cost £2trillion + and a whole host of mega projects to fund so the PIF isn’t there just for Newcastle… how much have UTD spent post Ferguson? How many champions leagues have PSG won ? If they wanna spend £300 per season then cool let them - I’m only worried about us and what we do and not what their teams are doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted June 11 VT Supporter Share Posted June 11 26 minutes ago, thabucks said: Agree with everything but the last paragraph - that’s city’s argument that they are being discriminated against and it’s far too late to ban nation state ownership. They should be free to invest where they like and the Uk economy is propped up by it. I hope we do form an alliance with Citeh & tear down the shackles of arbitrary paper accounting. **** the league and ffp / psr its needs a challenging and destroying so the unfair advantages are removed. It’s driven by keeping the poorer run big clubs top of the pile pure and simples. We have two billionaires supported by a subsidiary of Comcast so I don’t fear nation state ownership. There is a clear difference between a private individual who wants to invest their own money, and a literal country who own the club for non-sporting reasons. The Prime Minister is never going to be personally getting involved and arguing in favour of a single person and how they want to run their club. We've already seen this with Newcastle and their ownership and there's rumours that the government is putting pressure on regarding City. That's getting off topic though, so to reiterate my original point, if Nas or Wes want to invest their own money, they should be able to as long as it is their money. If they were to sign Mbappe on £500m a year for 3 year's and they put £1500m somewhere safe to pay for it then fantastic. If they signed him and then said that it's Villa's problem and bankrupted the club, that's not on. This is what FFP/PSR should be about. Nswe clearly want to invest in the club and should be free to do so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 Just now, thabucks said: The Saudis have a 170km line they’re planning on building that’s quoted to cost £2trillion + and a whole host of mega projects to fund so the PIF isn’t there just for Newcastle… how much have UTD spent post Ferguson? How many champions leagues have PSG won ? If they wanna spend £300 per season then cool let them - I’m only worried about us and what we do and not what their teams are doing Nas is complaining about them being able to spend more than us because of how the rules are setup. You think we'll be able to compete if we can spend the 150m he wants to put in when they spend 600m? Yes, we'll move away from most of the 20, but there's two clubs that will move away from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 18 minutes ago, MrBlack said: Nas is complaining about them being able to spend more than us because of how the rules are setup. You think we'll be able to compete if we can spend the 150m he wants to put in when they spend 600m? Yes, we'll move away from most of the 20, but there's two clubs that will move away from us. That's not true. There is only so far any club can go and the likes of man city are pretty much at that ceiling. With the right investment other clubs would be able to catch them. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 5 minutes ago, Made In Aston said: That's not true. There is only so far any club can go and the likes of man city are pretty much at that ceiling. With the right investment other clubs would be able to catch them. What isnt true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 4 minutes ago, Made In Aston said: That's not true. There is only so far any club can go and the likes of man city are pretty much at that ceiling. With the right investment other clubs would be able to catch them. That's an absolute myth We're not catching them no matter what investments we make, we're not catching the revenues of chelsea, utd or Liverpool either, the gap is absolutely **** huge and every time villa makes an investment or do something well all that will happen is these big clubs will see it as a market readjustment and increase their own revenues further, Newcastle get themselves a sleeve sponsor jumping from £1.5m to £7m Liverpool go get themselves a new deal that jumps from £10m to £25m - their sleeve sponsor is more than our main shirt sponsor, there's no good investment that will change that The only thing that keeps the PL going is that various top clubs are ran by clowns who waste their advantage over everyone else 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 1 minute ago, MrBlack said: What isnt true? That there will be 2 clubs moving away from us. Man city already has 2 world class players for every position and the best manager in world football. How much more can they improve?! They can't. Clubs like ours could make ground if the spending rules were relaxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villa_Vids Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 5 minutes ago, Made In Aston said: That's not true. There is only so far any club can go and the likes of man city are pretty much at that ceiling. With the right investment other clubs would be able to catch them. Yh. Strategy trumps money now. City are in a position of strength but the rules are not allowing for creditable challengers to compete with them. FFP rich clubs like Spurs and Utd are a disgrace really with their financial (and sporting) advantages they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 3 minutes ago, villa4europe said: That's an absolute myth We're not catching them no matter what investments we make, we're not catching the revenues of chelsea, utd or Liverpool either, the gap is absolutely **** huge and every time villa makes an investment or do something well all that will happen is these big clubs will see it as a market readjustment and increase their own revenues further, Newcastle get themselves a sleeve sponsor jumping from £1.5m to £7m Liverpool go get themselves a new deal that jumps from £10m to £25m - their sleeve sponsor is more than our main shirt sponsor, there's no good investment that will change that The only thing that keeps the PL going is that various top clubs are ran by clowns who waste their advantage over everyone else I don't agree with that. When a club already has all the quality players they need there isn't a necessity to spend the money, apart from to replace the odd player who moves on. Meanwhile other clubs could be buying 4-5 players that improve then and gradually catching up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Made In Aston said: That there will be 2 clubs moving away from us. Man city already has 2 world class players for every position and the best manager in world football. How much more can they improve?! They can't. Clubs like ours could make ground if the spending rules were relaxed. Disagree. City are already complaining that the rules stop them from spending more and filed a lawsuit to that effect. They're at their current FFP ceiling (which they've artificially lifted by cheating 115 times), and they want to spend more. If they can, then players will happily go there to rotate and win and earn more than they would do coming to us to rotate, not win and earn less. Newcastle haven't even started but have trillions waiting if they're allowed to. Nas and Wes dont have that bottomless pit to call on. Yes, our manager and coaching setup seems to give us an advantage over most other clubs, and combine that with our owners being able to spend whatever they want, we'll continue to pull away from the rest of the league. But City have a similarly exceptional setup and could spend basically infinitely more than us to keep improving it and keeping us behind. Fortune plays a part, and we may win the odd thing in this hypothetical future, which may well be better than what we get currently, but ultimately City will become more consistent being able to spend more, not less. Nas is reportedly wanting spending capped in line with the highest revenue. Its absolutely the right thing to do. Lifting it totally is bad for us, bad for competition, and bad for the sustainability of the league. Edited June 11 by MrBlack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts