pink_triangle

So Southampton are going for Marsch now, don’t understand the strategy at that club, they may as well have stuck with Ralph.

The government can add the context. If they can justify it then justify it. If it highlights things that need to change then change them. I don’t think we should have an issue with opposition asking questions, I hope conservative do the same in opposition.

Most people who work for central government don’t get grace and favour housing either. Th trouble with these allowances are, there is a justification for using them, but some people will always take advantage and use as a perk of the job. If highlighting it means governments of all colours are more careful with this expenditure, I don’t see that as a bad thing.

Public sector workers generally need to stay in travel lodges, we aren’t given a choice.

There’s no doubt that money shouldn’t be spent on fine art for the treasury. When it comes to stationary you probably need more info. Im not against the foreign office having some budget for food and alcohol, but you can easily imagine how it is open to abuse.

You can maybe get away with the strange comments if you have a track record that backs them up. He seemingly couldn’t adapt and that is one reason he came short.

The question is has the red wall collapsed or was it just a temporary movement to get Brexit done and stop Corbyn. I think we need more evidence.

I know who they are trying to appeal, but not convinced most of these people know who the bloke is. My old constituency of Wrexham went to the dark side last election, I am almost certain they will go back. I don’t sense a love for labour, but think Brexit and Corbyn were the issues last time.

Don’t forget those teams who want to be in league 2 next seasons, we don’t want City joining the party!

The Aguero moment wouldn’t be erased from the memories and that matters to a fan far more than what a Wikipedia page says.

As a fan I am not sure taking away titles is the biggest hit. It won’t take the memories or joy of winning the titles away. The players will keep their medals and their reputations. It only really benefits clubs like Liverpool and Man Utd who are counting titles. Once the moment has gone, it’s gone in my view.

Wrexham effectively took Leicesters punishment. They went into administration to buy better players, we went into administration because a dodgy owner was trying to kill the club. Sadly Wrexham went out of the cup last night , but to hold our own over 2 games against a team destined for the premiership is a positive. Billy Sharp is undoubtedly a twat though!

I guess the thought is that City without Pep won’t have the same dominance, time will tell. They may have Haaland, but to me their defence and midfield isn’t what it was so the era of dominance I think will end. It’s a good point though is it better to have 3 teams rotating as champions with shorter reigns or different teams coming in and having more dominant reigns. You could argue both ways.

I think it’s mainly historical. They are one of the oldest professional teams and the Welsh league was not formed until many years later. However I’m sure decision not to join is financial, but also based on historical rivalries and what the fans want. I don’t have any issues with clubs making decisions based on finances. Pretty much any decision a club makes is based on finance to some degree.

As someone who hopes to support a team in league 2 next season, that’s a very bad idea!! What effect do you think it’s had on football? You say it effects all teams, but to me as a lower league fan it makes no difference. Just different rich teams with different rich owners winning the same league. In fact it probably benefits lower league by pushing better players down the pyramid.

I also support the team who generates and spends the most money in our league. I don’t have a problem with that, nor do I have an issue if the other 23 spend more and we end up at the bottom. I am fine with Liverpool taking advantage of their commercial appeal, generating and spending what they want. The trouble is if we put spending restrictions in place, the consequences are that the best teams remain the best, continue to have the most fans, get the best sponsorship deals and nothing ever changes. Financial fair play by nature looked after those who were at the top when the rules was brought in. It’s very fair if you own Liverpool or Man United, other people may have different definitions of fair. I would prefer the rules allow for more competition and not less. If there is a way of doing it without hyper spending great. The trouble is those with the power want less competition and not more.

My view (others may differ) is the only way to consistently (not one off like Leicester) compete for a title if you are outside the establishment is this hyper spending that you have seen from Chelsea, Man City and will soon from Newcastle. The establishment have that inbuilt advantage that can’t be caught through organic growth. What happens when teams try and grow organically, the slow nature of that growth means that the vultures swarm and take their best players. Since I have started following football only 5 clubs have won multiple league titles. Arsenal, Man U, Liverpool (establishment) Chelsea and City (via super spending). My guess is without that spending the vast majority of Chelsea/City titles would have been absorbed by the other 3. Some may say that’s fine and no different to other leagues, I take a different view.

I support Wrexham (different American/Canadian owners) but ultimately don’t believe in financial fair play.

When I first watched football the best player were all in serie A. I didn’t enjoy football less. I guess the argument may be that it doesn’t matter if the system doesn’t let new clubs crash the party looking at the likes of Germany, Spain and Scotland. As someone who doesn’t support a premiership team I think the league is better for the fact teams have crashed the party, the question is how does the system allow this to happen.

I don’t think there are any good guys in this situation, they are all as bad as each other and acting in complete self interest. Just different shades of bad. So accepting that I look at what’s best for the competition. I personally don’t think indefinite establishment domination is best. Would love for a way that doesn’t involve huge spending, don’t think it exists.

That’s all great in theory, but does that allow someone to be more than Spurs, I’m not convinced it does. Financial fair play was never about fairness it was about the top clubs protecting their position. My favoured system is a salary cap, let everyone compete from an equal position and let the best team win.

You can’t make a case to the likes of Man Utd, Juventus, Real Madrid etc that a system where clubs can compete against them on a more equal playing field is a better system. These clubs hold all the power and influence the rules to consolidate their power. Unfortunately in my view these owners of the big clubs are all morally repugnant whether Americans Billionaires or super states. None are thinking about what’s best for the game.

How do you define fairly? Those at the top have consistently tried to change the rules to consolidate their power, is that fair because it’s in the rules? Whenever you bring in financial fair play the benefactors are always going to be the clubs that have the advantage at the time it is brought in, is that fair? I have no issue with true fairness, bring in a salary cap and big spending is not needed. Whatever system is in place needs to allow new teams to consistently break through, I’m all for ideas how that could be achieved without this spending. I fear for a system where “fairness” can mean you can only get as far as Spurs and occasionally finish 4th.

You could point to Leicester over a couple of seasons and then the question what is the least worst option. A closed shop where the established clubs keep at the top and a Leicester may occasionally break in for a couple of years and then fall back, or the current system where the only way of (consistently breaking through) is this huge spending and flirting/breaking the rules. Different people may have different views. I don’t support any of the top clubs so makes no difference to me which wealthy team wins the league. However I think it’s better if different teams win than Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenals win those leagues forever. Note as I said I would favour a more level playing field where neither establishment or state wealth gave you a huge advantage, good luck getting that through. As I have said biggest hit by these huge spenders have been Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal and the investments of their owners. If we are prioritising looking after these, I think our priorities are wrong.

The establishment will come after Newcastle at some point, of that I have no doubt. To me the biggest threat to English football is not these state controlled clubs, but the American owned establishment. If these could over time take over the majority of the premiership clubs, we could be put in a position where they change the rules to make it more of a closed shop. In terms of the rules, it depends why they are in place and who has suffered from them being broken. My view is that the rules are in place to protect the established teams and stop others consistently breaking into that exclusive club. I dont think it’s possible to break into the club strictly following the rules. On that basis I don’t care if the rules have been broken. Now if the big clubs want to suggest true “fairness “ where clubs compete more equally without spending huge, I am very open to this.