Demitri_C Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 9 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. Yeah and footballs officially dead. It will just be pointless watching football anymore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Yeah and footballs officially dead. It will just be pointless watching football anymore West Ham also have a billionaire investor. He could easily buy them out if the shackles came off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPJCB Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 3 hours ago, Stevo985 said: 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. Yes I know. My question is how we would benefit from removal of that rule? Do we have affiliated companies that we would use to inflate sponsorship money? This seems like a rule whose removal uniquely benefits the likes of city and Newcastle which makes me confused as to why we would support getting rid of it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 I'm happy for them to repeal the rule so long as it's replaced by something equally effective at preventing the City's and Newcastles bringing the entire wealth of a nation to the table to make the league anti-competetive. Ideally we need a wage cap. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPJCB Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 10 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? What’s your definition of “competition”? City winning the league every year. We’re practically at that point already so how does letting the shackles off prevent that? We’re not talking about businesspeople here we’re talking about nation states who have literally no limit on what they will spend 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 4 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: I'm happy for them to repeal the rule so long as it's replaced by something equally effective at preventing the City's and Newcastles bringing the entire wealth of a nation to the table to make the league anti-competetive. Ideally we need a wage cap. The most ideal thing, and also the funniest and best. Is to take city out the league. See ya. All their titles go to 2nds/runners up. Congrats to us for the league cup. Then bring in a wage cap. Say whatever Liverpool's is right now. Or Arsenal's. That sort of level. Total player salaries, youth, first team, all of it. That's everyone's limit from now. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Salary cap and they would just continue to make the players and manager "tourism ambassadors" or whatever and pay them on the side that way. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 10 minutes ago, JPJCB said: Yes I know. My question is how we would benefit from removal of that rule? Do we have affiliated companies that we would use to inflate sponsorship money? This seems like a rule whose removal uniquely benefits the likes of city and Newcastle which makes me confused as to why we would support getting rid of it We would need to inflate sponsorship if the rule was removed, our owners could just spend their own money, which the rule is currently preventing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPJCB Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Just now, duke313 said: We would need to inflate sponsorship if the rule was removed, our owners could just spend their own money, which the rule is currently preventing. But how would we do that? Do they own companies who would act as our sponsors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 2 minutes ago, JPJCB said: But how would we do that? Do they own companies who would act as our sponsors? Typo, I should have wrote we ‘wouldn’t’ need to inflate sponsorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 3 minutes ago, JPJCB said: But how would we do that? Do they own companies who would act as our sponsors? Our owners also don't print their own money unlike the oil states. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 6 minutes ago, sne said: Salary cap and they would just continue to make the players and manager "tourism ambassadors" or whatever and pay them on the side that way. This. People think a salary cap will solve all the issues. Players would just get massive sponsorship incentives outside of football to sign for this club or that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPJCB Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 3 minutes ago, duke313 said: Typo, I should have wrote we ‘wouldn’t’ need to inflate sponsorship. I don’t think that’s correct. This rule is specifically about associated party transactions - I.e companies owned by the same group which are putting money in via commercial deals. That’s not the same as investments from owners who are ultimate beneficiaries rather than “associated” parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 4 minutes ago, JPJCB said: I don’t think that’s correct. This rule is specifically about associated party transactions - I.e companies owned by the same group which are putting money in via commercial deals. That’s not the same as investments from owners who are ultimate beneficiaries rather than “associated” parties I assumed you were talking about City wanting FFP scrapped? Which would mean clubs could just spend what they want? Which is presumably why we (allegedly) are supporting them, so we can spend what we want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Wouldn't be allowed to play in Europe thou unless UEFA also scrapped FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPJCB Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 10 minutes ago, duke313 said: I assumed you were talking about City wanting FFP scrapped? Which would mean clubs could just spend what they want? Which is presumably why we (allegedly) are supporting them, so we can spend what we want? No im talking about the specific city lawsuit. I can see why we’d want to get rid of FFP in general though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 30 minutes ago, sne said: Salary cap and they would just continue to make the players and manager "tourism ambassadors" or whatever and pay them on the side that way. Then you bring in a rule that says they can't. It's infinitely do-able. You have a limit and make that limit the same for all clubs, none of this PSR nonsense where some teams can spend more than others. All teams can spend the same on wages and that's set. Transfers you do whatever you like. That allows teams to be mobile and restricts what the likes of City and Newcastle can do. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 1 minute ago, desensitized43 said: Then you bring in a rule that says they can't. It's infinitely do-able. You have a limit and make that limit the same for all clubs, none of this PSR nonsense where some teams can spend more than others. All teams can spend the same on wages and that's set. Transfers you do whatever you like. That allows teams to be mobile and restricts what the likes of City and Newcastle can do. How can you enforce someone earning money outside of football, i'm pretty sure that would be illegal in most countries. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 1 minute ago, desensitized43 said: Then you bring in a rule that says they can't. It's infinitely do-able. You have a limit and make that limit the same for all clubs, none of this PSR nonsense where some teams can spend more than others. All teams can spend the same on wages and that's set. Transfers you do whatever you like. That allows teams to be mobile and restricts what the likes of City and Newcastle can do. How would that rule look like?. A players playing for a state owned club can not be payed by another company owned by that state? Saudi for example are big owners in pretty much every big company around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: 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. And yet it is the most popular and watched league in the world. In an entity whose only purpose is to entertain the masses there is no better measure of the success of its current model than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts