Stevo985 Posted June 6 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6 1 hour 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 No but removal of the ffp rules in general would allow our owners to put more money into the club without breaching FFP rules. Which I imagine they are gagging to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bielesibub Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Would removal of spending caps make our club and all clubs in the prem and possibly further on down more valuable? I mean there are probably other grotty states that would be happy to use the prem for sports washing. As much as I love our owners, they are business men and they know how to make money. when all the clubs are owned by ultra rich oil states then surely this would level the playing field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villa_Vids Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 1 hour ago, JPJCB said: 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 There needs to be financial controls but limiting investment into clubs is backwards imo. No other forward thinking industry would do this. Man City have a similar spend to (FFP rich ) Man Utd over the same period. City are successful because of strategy and ambition. Utd owners are sitting pretty on their investment without putting the effort in to be competitive. Spurs likewise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 31 minutes ago, bielesibub said: Would removal of spending caps make our club and all clubs in the prem and possibly further on down more valuable? I mean there are probably other grotty states that would be happy to use the prem for sports washing. As much as I love our owners, they are business men and they know how to make money. when all the clubs are owned by ultra rich oil states then surely this would level the playing field? It would turn the PL into a Super League. A billionaire’s playground. Other clubs would get major investments. It wouldn’t level the playing field but do more to ruin the game. The gap between the Premier League and Championship is already huge. It would be a closed shop. Clubs like Bournemouth can already outspend many bigger clubs in Europe. It would have a big knock on effect for other leagues too when their talent gets hoarded not just by 6 teams but potentially double that due to the added spending power. West Ham have a billionaire on their board too. It wouldn’t make it more even. You could have a billionaire/state-funded top 10 until the other clubs get similar investment and yo-yo out and in of the league. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 6 minutes ago, The_Steve said: It would turn the PL into a Super League. A billionaire’s playground. Other clubs would get major investments. It wouldn’t level the playing field but do more to ruin the game. The gap between the Premier League and Championship is already huge. It would be a closed shop. Clubs like Bournemouth can already outspend many bigger clubs in Europe. It would have a big knock on effect for other leagues too when their talent gets hoarded not just by 6 teams but potentially double that due to the added spending power. West Ham have a billionaire on their board too. It wouldn’t make it more even. You could have a billionaire/state-funded top 10 until the other clubs get similar investment and yo-yo out and in of the league. Why wasn't it like that before FFP then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 1 hour ago, sne said: 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. 1 hour ago, duke313 said: How can you enforce someone earning money outside of football, i'm pretty sure that would be illegal in most countries. It's already the rules that players can't do certain things or take money from certain organisations. Why would they need to be paid by an associated party if they're already very wealthy highly paid athletes? They can still go and advertise for Nike or something, provided Nike and people who own Nike don't own the club they currently play for. There's plenty of other companies they can go and work with that aren't associated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Villa_Vids said: There needs to be financial controls but limiting investment into clubs is backwards imo. No other forward thinking industry would do this. Man City have a similar spend to (FFP rich ) Man Utd over the same period. City are successful because of strategy and ambition. Utd owners are sitting pretty on their investment without putting the effort in to be competitive. Spurs likewise. City do officially Edited June 6 by Zatman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted June 6 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6 I don't care what we are officially saying as a club, the Premier League needs more financial regulation, not less. It just needs to be equitable. Clubs, like all businesses know what they want (complete monopoly), but need to be saved from themselves. If the clubs in the PL got what they want (free reign and unlimited funds), it would completely ruin the sport. It would become completely homogenous, boring, and no-one would watch it (see Red Bull and F1 for details). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 7 minutes ago, duke313 said: Why wasn't it like that before FFP then? Partly because the level of wealth in the game now wasn’t the same before. Look at the TV revenue now compared to even a decade ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 26 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: It's already the rules that players can't do certain things or take money from certain organisations. Why would they need to be paid by an associated party if they're already very wealthy highly paid athletes? They can still go and advertise for Nike or something, provided Nike and people who own Nike don't own the club they currently play for. There's plenty of other companies they can go and work with that aren't associated. Don't think that's realistic or even legally possible. In this scenario, would Emi Martinez still be allowed to be sponsored by Adidas? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bielesibub Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 29 minutes ago, The_Steve said: It would turn the PL into a Super League. A billionaire’s playground. Other clubs would get major investments. It wouldn’t level the playing field but do more to ruin the game. The gap between the Premier League and Championship is already huge. It would be a closed shop. Clubs like Bournemouth can already outspend many bigger clubs in Europe. It would have a big knock on effect for other leagues too when their talent gets hoarded not just by 6 teams but potentially double that due to the added spending power. West Ham have a billionaire on their board too. It wouldn’t make it more even. You could have a billionaire/state-funded top 10 until the other clubs get similar investment and yo-yo out and in of the league. I guess that’s kind of my point, in some kind of dystopian league where you’d end up having 20 state owned teams in the prem, you’d get state owned teams dribbling into the championship through relegation (assuming that’s allowed), then none state owned teams being bought by investment capital funds waiting to be bought out by the sports washing states, if they get promoted, or look like they might be. I’m surprised that any sensible business man spunks millions and millions into premier league football just for the sport, it stopped being sport years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 10 minutes ago, sne said: Don't think that's realistic or even legally possible. In this scenario, would Emi Martinez still be allowed to be sponsored by Adidas? in Europe its not, same with any kind of salary couldn't be player specific, you cant introduce a rule that says no one can earn more than £100k a week as that's illegal, you'd have to do it via a team cap if a saudi prince wanted to pay keiran trippier £10m to sing karaoke at his daughters birthday party there is absolutely no way football can control that 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted June 6 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6 5 minutes ago, villa4europe said: in Europe its not, same with any kind of salary couldn't be player specific, you cant introduce a rule that says no one can earn more than £100k a week as that's illegal, you'd have to do it via a team cap if a saudi prince wanted to pay keiran trippier £10m to sing karaoke at his daughters birthday party there is absolutely no way football can control that what song? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 7 minutes ago, sne said: Don't think that's realistic or even legally possible. In this scenario, would Emi Martinez still be allowed to be sponsored by Adidas? No he wouldn't if the Villa owners also owned Adidas. He can take money off pretty much any other sports brand though so I would argue you aren't actively restraining him you're just closing off an avenue to get around rules which we know is what clubs will try to do if allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 13 minutes ago, bielesibub said: I guess that’s kind of my point, in some kind of dystopian league where you’d end up having 20 state owned teams in the prem, you’d get state owned teams dribbling into the championship through relegation (assuming that’s allowed), then none state owned teams being bought by investment capital funds waiting to be bought out by the sports washing states, if they get promoted, or look like they might be. I’m surprised that any sensible business man spunks millions and millions into premier league football just for the sport, it stopped being sport years ago. Football as pure exhibition, not competition in the traditional sense. It’s happening already but it will only get worse. In that scenario you’d see more games abroad too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bielesibub Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 10 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: what song? The one about the football player who was good but isn’t anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 29 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: what song? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted June 6 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6 3 minutes ago, villa4europe said: Off topic but this song made me go and get a perm at the back, what a look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oishiiniku_uk Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 3 hours 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. It would have to be worldwide because otherwise the best players will just go wherever the restrictions don't exist (either to a pre-existing league or one that is newly-formed). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 (edited) 11 minutes ago, oishiiniku_uk said: It would have to be worldwide because otherwise the best players will just go wherever the restrictions don't exist (either to a pre-existing league or one that is newly-formed). Would they though? In that case why doesn't everyone go and play in Monaco or Saudi or wherever the tax situation favours them the most? Edit: That's the same argument that's been used since the beginning of time for not taxing bankers or businesses etc...they'll go elsewhere. They haven't and even if they do...let them. Edited June 6 by desensitized43 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts