Keyblade Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 6 minutes ago, Zatman said: of course it is, they are cheating scumbags and anybody supporting them are pretty much enablers. Its like defending Lance Armstrong Tour de France victories It'd be like defending Lance Armstrong's ability to use a certain tire that other cyclists are allowed to use, which led him to using PEDs in the first place, but it's not endorsing his PED use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villa_Vids Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 Owners should have the ability to invest in their clubs/businesses. I would rather have the City owners than a Ridsdale or Tony Xia. NSWE are perfect for us - they saved the club and are trying to make us very competitive - they need to be supported by the Premier League rules to achieve it. A stronger cluster of clubs will make this league very interesting and more open. Do we want more competition or a closed shop? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post jacketspuds Posted June 5 Popular Post Share Posted June 5 Our owners may want to spend more, but the minute the shackles are off the likes of Newcastle and Chelsea will turn this league into a bigger farce. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
479Villan Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 I'm not going to assume based on a newspaper article before any hearing has become, but I will caution you are judged by the company you keep. Ask the English clubs who got tied at any portion to the Super League how that turned out for them, PR wise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishywashy Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 43 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I was reading that the Premier league have had to up their budget for legal representation and cases from £2m a year to £10m a year over the last couple of years in order to fight Citeh and their army of KC's - do we fund that? I mean does each club (including City) have to chip in to fund the league's expenses, or do they cut a chunk out of the TV and licensing deals before it goes to the clubs? How does the league finance itself and do we get to write our half a million a year off against PSR? City are making it hard enough without forcing everyone else to spend half a million a year fighting them in court. I assume they just take a cut from their various media deals, from a very quick glance at Companies House they seem to have around £350m to spend a year to spend on their own operations (after £3bn of their of their turnover goes on cost of sales). Not too shabby. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 6 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6 7 hours ago, Zatman said: of course it is, they are cheating scumbags and anybody supporting them are pretty much enablers. Its like defending Lance Armstrong Tour de France victories Supporting them in terms of defending their cheating then I agree. But if it’s just being against FFP in general then I disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 6 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6 7 hours ago, JPJCB said: Are you sure that’s right? Isn’t their lawsuit specifically about associated party transactions? I guess my main question is how exactly we’d benefit from that rule being removed Yes. They inflate their sponsorships because it allows them to pump money into the club through the back door while pretending it’s revenue. If the rules didn’t exist then they could just put that money into the club anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tommo_b Posted June 6 Popular Post Share Posted June 6 (edited) 7 hours ago, jacketspuds said: Our owners may want to spend more, but the minute the shackles are off the likes of Newcastle and Chelsea will turn this league into a bigger farce. This… not even Villa, United, Liverpool or Chelsea would be able to compete ever again, The league will be a two horse race year after year between Newcastle and City. Imagine if city win this ruling, Chelsea might be eyeing up the squad size ruling as detrimental to their ability to compete. Clubs have gotten way to powerful and big for their boots, the premier league needs to reign this in and come down on these clubs hard that push the boundaries, for example the European Super league punishments were pathetic. Edited June 6 by Tommo_b 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted June 6 Moderator Share Posted June 6 25 minutes ago, Tommo_b said: Clubs have gotten way to powerful and big for their boots, the premier league needs to reign this in and come down on these clubs hard that push the boundaries, for example the European Super league punishments were pathetic. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with the Premier league - in the past, there was the FA, who ran the game, and the clubs who operated under them - in order to grow from under an FA who had become set in their ways, the clubs formed their own league - but now there's no-one above them - the clubs are the Premier League, so there isn't a separate body that oversees them, there's no "good of the game" only individuals and groups who know they can benefit themselves if they can get fourteen of the other twenty to go along with them. It's a microcosm of the macrocosm, the battle between society and market, between state and corporate - I don't hate the Premier league, I hate capitalism. And still the only sporting nation that operates a form of socialism for the benefit of competition is the one nation on earth that has given itself over completely to the doctrine - it's always seemed strange that the US has parity at the heart of its sport and "State" dominance from its leagues while the more traditionally state lead erm..states have this absolute mess instead. The balance in this league has gone, it needs a complete reset. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 33 minutes ago, Tommo_b said: This… not even Villa, United, Liverpool or Chelsea would be able to compete ever again, The league will be a two horse race year after year between Newcastle and City. Imagine if city win this ruling, Chelsea might be eyeing up the squad size ruling as detrimental to their ability to compete. Clubs have gotten way to powerful and big for their boots, the premier league needs to reign this in and come down on these clubs hard that push the boundaries, for example the European Super league punishments were pathetic. Chelsea would be demanding the right to give 10 year contracts as anything less would damage their model. It’s a slippery slope. The League cannot afford to let itself get bullied by the likes of City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 34 minutes ago, Tommo_b said: This… not even Villa, United, Liverpool or Chelsea would be able to compete ever again, The league will be a two horse race year after year between Newcastle and City. Imagine if city win this ruling, Chelsea might be eyeing up the squad size ruling as detrimental to their ability to compete. Clubs have gotten way to powerful and big for their boots, the premier league needs to reign this in and come down on these clubs hard that push the boundaries, for example the European Super league punishments were pathetic. Also clubs will go to the wall chasing the dream if FFP is removed 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Platt Posted June 6 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6 Just limit squad sizes so clubs can't stockpile talent and loan it out. Give a realistic amount to spend on players each season. Which you can add together in a 3 year period so say 100 million a season but you waste it all in season 1 and not have anything to spend in year 2 and 3. Any money owners invest should not be leveraged against the club. Make match tickets cheaper across the board as the astronomical costs are rising because of the stupid FFP rules. This would make a competitive league and fans would not be taken for granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Ultimately, City are testing the resolve the of League. Blink first and we win. You think this is tough for you? Just wait and see what happens when we appeal your 115 charges. The League cannot be bullied by these crooks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delphouneso Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Purslow gets a lot of flack - a lot of it justified - but he wasn’t this tone deaf. Hopefully it’s just a case of we’re championing a vote for relaxing FFP rules next week so we can’t be seen to be siding with FFP this week. If we in any way contribute to this shit stain of a club getting off lightly I’ll be pretty sad. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 6 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6 I think somebody should get Nas to have a read of this thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 One thing us not being the good guys, that ship has sailed imo with gambling sponsors, multi club ownership and what not. Us actively being the bad guys would really suck and siding with City, even if we agree with part of their complains would be just sad. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 8 hours ago, jacketspuds said: Our owners may want to spend more, but the minute the shackles are off the likes of Newcastle and Chelsea will turn this league into a bigger farce. Exactly. And that simply cannot be allowed to happen. A lot of people outside those clubs would just pack it in as there would be no point. As it is now is imperfect (the main one being Chelsea and Man City gone in ahead of the rules the w@nkers) but the alternative is worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post oishiiniku_uk Posted June 6 Popular Post Share Posted June 6 (edited) Good piece on this: https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/05/manchester-citys-trumpian-tactics-spotlight-autocratic-creep-in-football As is said in the article above, the Premier League started on this slippery slope as soon as it let a nation state buy one of its clubs. The league, as powerful as it is, doesn't have anywhere near the money, legal resources or political leverage to oppose UAE/Saudi Arabia/whichever oil state buys the next PL club. A league that was formed by greed is being undone by an even greater greed. Edited June 6 by oishiiniku_uk 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 People saying "the league needs to do this and that" to the clubs. The Premier League ARE the clubs. The rules aren't imposed, they're proposed and then voted on by the majority of the Premier League clubs. If a club doesn't like a rule, they're free to challenge it, lobby other clubs and hold a vote to repeal it. What this is about is a small subsection of clubs that don't like the rules and can't find a democratic consensus to repeal it. It's no surprise it's those from the middle east that have a problem with a democratic vote. Frankly, if they don't like it they can withdraw their investment and sell up. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 9 hours ago, Villa_Vids said: Owners should have the ability to invest in their clubs/businesses. I would rather have the City owners than a Ridsdale or Tony Xia. NSWE are perfect for us - they saved the club and are trying to make us very competitive - they need to be supported by the Premier League rules to achieve it. A stronger cluster of clubs will make this league very interesting and more open. Do we want more competition or a closed shop? Who is competing with saudi arabia? As thats what will happen if the rules are scrapped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts