Football 2022/23

[pink_triangle]

27 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

That will work as long as it's implemented at the global level. Capping Premier league salaries would just send the top players to other countries leagues to earn the ridiculous wages they currently get. Does anyone need £100k a week? Even if your career is a single season you'll still earn more than enough to spend in a lifetime. 

It would be great for balancing out the local football pyramid though. 
 

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.

[zahidf]

But the premiere league tv money is split roughly equally isnt it? ( Depending on how high you get in the table). Its not like it is in La liga, where the big clubs get a higher percentage. If someone like Man Utd or Liverpool have more funds  cos of them making more money from stadium/merch e.t.c, that's fair enough. What rules are they putting in place which City have to cheat to circumvent exactly?

[Skip997]

14 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

As someone who doesn’t support a premiership team

Interesting

I was 100% convinced you were a Man City fan

[Skip997]

Just now, zahidf said:

But the premiere league tv money is split roughly equally isnt it? ( Depending on how high you get in the table). Its not like it is in La liga, where the big clubs get a higher percentage. If someone like Man Utd or Liverpool have more funds  cos of them making more money from stadium/merch e.t.c, that's fair enough. What rules are they putting in place which City have to cheat to circumvent exactly?

Yes 100%

[lost]

It’s the way football works that 90% of people support the club who were the best when they were a kid which I guess makes it very difficult for other teams to grow a supporter base and therefore revenue.

Personally I’m be surprised if anything happens that threatens the owners investments in other parts of Manchester, Andy Burnham would have a melt down. I think the ideal outcome for the league would be for Arsenal to win the league, city second with a big enough points tally over 4th where they can take a points hit and still get the last champions league place.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, zahidf said:

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Then relegate Chelsea and Newcastle. The establishment can then be happy these unworthy rivals have gone and can consolidate their power. I say be careful what you wish for. I lived through a period of Man U and Arsenal taking turns with the title and that wasn’t great either.

Have Newcastle broken the rules? no evidence of that. 

give them a chance.

 

i'm waiting to hear city's whining about how they're being picked on unfairly. 😛

 

 

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, lost said:

It’s the way football works that 90% of people support the club who were the best when they were a kid which I guess makes it very difficult for other teams to grow a supporter base and therefore revenue.

Personally I’m be surprised if anything happens that threatens the owners investments in other parts of Manchester, Andy Burnham would have a melt down. I think the ideal outcome for the league would be for Arsenal to win the league, city second with a big enough points tally over 4th where they can take a points hit and still get the last champions league place.

But then thats a good thing in that it creates a sense of community i guess?

 

the issues with Utd until recently for example wasnt cos of lack of money or City...

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

give them a chance.

 

i'm waiting to hear city's whining about how they're being picked on unfairly. 😛

 

 

Well...

 

‘There are some within the club who dream of this bombshell news,’ says chief Manchester City writer of the MEN Simon Bajkowski, who adds that those unnamed figures see this ‘as the chance to finally dance into the sunlit uplands of innocence, with the commission having the opportunity to eradicate not only any blame lain at City’s door but also the idea that they have only got away because the claims are time-barred’.

[Skip997]

8 minutes ago, lost said:

 I think the ideal outcome for the league would be for Arsenal to win the league, city second with a big enough points tally over 4th where they can take a points hit and still get the last champions league place.

The ideal outcome for the league and football is that Man City are demoted to league two.

I'm getting the impression that some people don't understand the extent of their cheating and the effect it's had on football.

This is a watershed moment in football, either the PL come down extremely harshly on them or the PL is effectively finished as a serious entity.

Forget all this tribal "anyone but Liverpool or Man Utd" nonsense, this effects all teams.

[Skip997]

10 minutes ago, Neil said:

give them a chance.

 

i'm waiting to hear city's whining about how they're being picked on unfairly. 😛

 

 

It's already happening.

[pink_triangle]

29 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Interesting

I was 100% convinced you were a Man City fan

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

[pink_triangle]

31 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But the premiere league tv money is split roughly equally isnt it? ( Depending on how high you get in the table). Its not like it is in La liga, where the big clubs get a higher percentage. If someone like Man Utd or Liverpool have more funds  cos of them making more money from stadium/merch e.t.c, that's fair enough. What rules are they putting in place which City have to cheat to circumvent exactly?

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.

[Skip997]

Quote

Many Premier League clubs want Manchester City to be kicked out of the division if they are found guilty of breaking rules over nine seasons.

Quote

The Premier League's most severe punishment in these circumstances would be to expel City and it has been reported that the English Football League would be under no obligation to accept them.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11679/12805239/man-city-premier-league-clubs-want-champions-kicked-out-if-guilty-of-alleged-financial-breaches

Could be the end.

[Punksnotdead]

Yeah, it's a disgrace that a club that gets 75,000 fans through the door, sells millions of shirts, gets loads more sponsorship money, should be allowed to spend more than Bournemouth!

In other news, I'm starting a campaign to let the manager of my local corner shop earn the same salary as the boss of Tesco - anyone with me?

[pink_triangle]

37 minutes ago, Punksnotdead said:

Yeah, it's a disgrace that a club that gets 75,000 fans through the door, sells millions of shirts, gets loads more sponsorship money, should be allowed to spend more than Bournemouth!

In other news, I'm starting a campaign to let the manager of my local corner shop earn the same salary as the boss of Tesco - anyone with me?

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.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

The ideal outcome for the league and football is that Man City are demoted to league two.

I'm getting the impression that some people don't understand the extent of their cheating and the effect it's had on football.

This is a watershed moment in football, either the PL come down extremely harshly on them or the PL is effectively finished as a serious entity.

Forget all this tribal "anyone but Liverpool or Man Utd" nonsense, this effects all teams.

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. 

[hodgey123]

The argument that it is better for a club like City to shake things up to prevent the established teams winning title after title would make sense if we weren't now in a position where the league is arguably less competitive than ever. City have won 4 of the last 5 league titles and the vast majority of the domestic cups along the way. Not even under peak Fergie did United win so much.

[thetime]

50 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

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. 

Of course Wrexham playing in the English league is all about finances, Rather than support the Welsh league. 😁

[pink_triangle]

23 minutes ago, thetime said:

Of course Wrexham playing in the English league is all about finances, Rather than support the Welsh league. 😁

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.

[pink_triangle]

53 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

The argument that it is better for a club like City to shake things up to prevent the established teams winning title after title would make sense if we weren't now in a position where the league is arguably less competitive than ever. City have won 4 of the last 5 league titles and the vast majority of the domestic cups along the way. Not even under peak Fergie did United win so much.

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.

[charlierc]

23 hours ago, Neil said:

So is Bielsa the real deal? 

If he's such a good coach why did Leeds get worse with him in charge. 

Worse with him in charge is an odd predisposition imo - in the last season before Bielsa took the Leeds job, they finished in the Championship's bottom half, but MB got them 3rd, 1st, and then on the first try, a top half spot in the Premier League.

I think he'd run out of road at the point when Bielsa sacked him, but that Leeds team under him last season would likely have won any hypothetical game against their 2017/18 side.

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, thetime said:

Of course Wrexham playing in the English league is all about finances, Rather than support the Welsh league. 😁

I mean we're re-litigating the past with this Man City case stretching back to 2009 but the call to re-litigate Wrexham's ascension to the English leagues in 1921 (to say nothing of Cardiff, Swansea and Newport also being in the English leagues) is another matter.

[charlierc]

3 hours ago, Punksnotdead said:

Yeah, it's a disgrace that a club that gets 75,000 fans through the door, sells millions of shirts, gets loads more sponsorship money, should be allowed to spend more than Bournemouth!

 

On a sort-of riff of that, the Premier League power is such that rumours abound that in the January window, Bournemouth were offering more in wages to Roma attacker Nicolo Zaniolo than AC Milan, the literal Italian champions and a side still in the Champions League.

Which, I doubt in 2007 when Milan won what remains the most recent of their Champions League titles, I would have expected to be writing that.

There is a very valid argument that the Premier League is now a European Super League - hell, I know a lot of people have concerns Newcastle and the new deep pockets we have will try to blow everyone out the water, but if anything, Chelsea have gone crazy on that front, while we also got out-spent by West Ham and spent about the same as Nottingham Forest.

So, pfft, I dunno - you then start to stray away into the broader argument on whether the Premier League as a whole is bad for football rather than just the outrageous spending of some clubs, or indeed this new case.

Edited February 7, 2023 by charlierc

[charlierc]

10 hours ago, zahidf said:

Have Newcastle broken the rules? no evidence of that. 

Since the takeover? Not that I'm aware of - when the thing was signed off, it was mentioned Mike Ashley's frugal nature meant we had a lot of FFP wriggle room for signing players, but that the signings made in the first 2 windows with Saudi cash meant that we didn't have as much in Jan. 

I know that we may be limited in what we can do with commercial deals with companies tied in with our owners thanks to a 2021 rule change, as noted here: Premier League lifts temporary ban on owner-related sponsorship deals | Football News | Sky Sports.

Not to say that there aren't any links - main one being the presence of a Saudi-based retailer called Noon as our sleeve sponsor - but I think the controls brought in because Man City's owners were running up substantial losses (£200m or so in 2010/11 at its most extreme) may stop us from going truly wild. Or at least a smidge more wild than the already overheated PL transfer market. It's certainly more modest than, say, the PiF's attempts to create its own golf super league, or rumours they had a $20bn bid to buy F1 from its current American owners rejected.

[Gnomicide]

If City were to be kicked out the Premier League, would the Championship have to accept them? The teams hoping for promotion would know it would be a huge dent in their chances.

Kick 'em down a further league or two and teams may be a little more welcoming as it's probably a couple of decent paydays in a season and they'd be much less likely to hold on to the best players so pose less of a threat.

Chances are bugger all will happen but if they are found guilty, and let's face it, we all know they are, they should have the book thrown at them. Thinking about Leicester for example, if they'd qualified for Europe a couple of times after winning the League, could they have signed better players or held onto some of the ones that left? 

How far do you take it down the league? You could argue that given how shit City used to be, they could easily have been in the bottom reaches of the league and fighting relegation, could relegated teams have beaten them to 17th? Do they have a case against them.

And the big question is if they are booted out, would the current owner walk away and leave them floundering? Let's hope so.