| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 08:22 - Mar 19 with 1731 views | jayessess |
I wonder if Forest's owners have considered whether they could've just spent £200m in transfer fees rather than £280m, thus easily complying with the rules? |  |
|  |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 08:24 - Mar 19 with 1727 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
As much as I hate ‘cheating’ I can’t help but feel FFP is just another way of keeping the monopoly of the top 5 or 6 clubs. And though parachute payments hurt the competitiveness of the Championship, without them it would be incredibly difficult for clubs like ours to try and ‘break in to the PL’ versus the established teams (ie you couldn’t get promoted and invest to stay up without that safety net).
On the other hand I worry about the sustainability and obscenity of English football, I’m just not sure FFP is the right way to police it. |  | | |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 08:32 - Mar 19 with 1669 views | ElephantintheRoom |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 08:24 - Mar 19 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
As much as I hate ‘cheating’ I can’t help but feel FFP is just another way of keeping the monopoly of the top 5 or 6 clubs. And though parachute payments hurt the competitiveness of the Championship, without them it would be incredibly difficult for clubs like ours to try and ‘break in to the PL’ versus the established teams (ie you couldn’t get promoted and invest to stay up without that safety net).
On the other hand I worry about the sustainability and obscenity of English football, I’m just not sure FFP is the right way to police it. |
I’m not sure FFP is a means to restrict ‘small clubs’ from breaking through a glass ceiling rather than a means to stop state-sponsored Sportswashing rendering the sport pointless.
It’s not perfect and will take time to have an effect - but the effect of Forest cheating last year is one reason why the Championship is top heavy with slightly better than usual Premier League dross this year. | |
| |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 08:35 - Mar 19 with 1683 views | Pinewoodblue |
Tried to bend the rules (cheated), punished with a small 4pt penalty, but given the safety net of a parachute payments so they can get back on the gravy train as quickly as possible.
No wonder they voted to maintain the status quo. |  |
| |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 08:58 - Mar 19 with 1617 views | tcblue |
Probably shouldn't be calling it a pyramid anymore.
I wouldn't cry too hard if there WAS a breakaway Euro League - assuming it would force some kind of change in the domestic leagues.
Let Sky have their NFL | | | |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 09:32 - Mar 19 with 1471 views | Churchman |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 08:24 - Mar 19 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
As much as I hate ‘cheating’ I can’t help but feel FFP is just another way of keeping the monopoly of the top 5 or 6 clubs. And though parachute payments hurt the competitiveness of the Championship, without them it would be incredibly difficult for clubs like ours to try and ‘break in to the PL’ versus the established teams (ie you couldn’t get promoted and invest to stay up without that safety net).
On the other hand I worry about the sustainability and obscenity of English football, I’m just not sure FFP is the right way to police it. |
Of course it’s all about the top clubs hoovering up the cash. All of it if possible. They are not the least interested in the well-being of the sport or competition. It’s all about £££. It’s all ars@ about face because without genuine competition, there is no sport.
This started with Sky in 1992 and I see no end to it. Even 30 years ago the money was skewed towards the important clubs and this ultimately destroys competition. We are now seeing the result. The rotting of the league from the bottom up.
Without change there will be a league of 10 to 16 clubs maximum, no relegation or promotion with just two or three clubs winning everything. This is the logical conclusion and one the owners of Man U, Man C, Arsenal, Spurs Liverpool, Chelsea would jump at the chance at.
The NFL model. But it isn’t because the NFL is built on the basis that the competition is the most important thing. That’s why the poorest performing teams get the first picks in the draft. Can anyone imagine Chelsea or Man City agreeing to anything like that?
I propose a permanent mini league of those clubs. They can play each other four times a year or whatever and play in their super league with Atheletico Pathetico and leave the rest to form a meaningful pyramid.
In the meantime, Forest crying ‘foul’ is laughable. They’re happy to take the PL riches, but not happy to abide by the rules. However unfair they perceive it to be (and it is), tough. They broke the rules. Given by breaking the rules they could relegate a club that didn’t, perhaps they should be relegated.
The people controlling football in this country are pathetic. But I suspect their ineptitude and weakness is well paid for, just as it is at an international level at FIFA and UEFA. |  | | |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 09:48 - Mar 19 with 1400 views | jayessess |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 08:24 - Mar 19 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
As much as I hate ‘cheating’ I can’t help but feel FFP is just another way of keeping the monopoly of the top 5 or 6 clubs. And though parachute payments hurt the competitiveness of the Championship, without them it would be incredibly difficult for clubs like ours to try and ‘break in to the PL’ versus the established teams (ie you couldn’t get promoted and invest to stay up without that safety net).
On the other hand I worry about the sustainability and obscenity of English football, I’m just not sure FFP is the right way to police it. |
Think the alternative to FFP is far worse really.
It's fairly inevitable that the teams with the biggest budgets are going to dominate the top division in any country. In the context of the Premier League there's essentially two ways of determining which clubs those are:
(1) You impose spending controls related to revenues, with the result that the biggest revenue-generators generally have the biggest budgets.
(2) You have no controls, with the result that the clubs whose owners can access the most money have the biggest budgets.
In the second case, well, Chelsea, Manchester City and Newcastle United are happy, Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal probably less so (but will still be more or less fine). Everybody else below them is probably spending increasingly reckless amounts of money to compete, with clubs periodically going bankrupt. [Post edited 19 Mar 10:17]
| |
| |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 09:59 - Mar 19 with 1366 views | Guthrum |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 09:48 - Mar 19 by jayessess |
Think the alternative to FFP is far worse really.
It's fairly inevitable that the teams with the biggest budgets are going to dominate the top division in any country. In the context of the Premier League there's essentially two ways of determining which clubs those are:
(1) You impose spending controls related to revenues, with the result that the biggest revenue-generators generally have the biggest budgets.
(2) You have no controls, with the result that the clubs whose owners can access the most money have the biggest budgets.
In the second case, well, Chelsea, Manchester City and Newcastle United are happy, Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal probably less so (but will still be more or less fine). Everybody else below them is probably spending increasingly reckless amounts of money to compete, with clubs periodically going bankrupt. [Post edited 19 Mar 10:17]
|
The third alternative is you apply an absolute spending cap on wages and/or transfer fees, irrespective of revenue or funds. Such things exist in other sports (e.g. Formula One).
Sure, the top clubs would bleat about that not allowing "free competition", but it would also reduce their costs and make them more profitable. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 13:45 - Mar 19 with 1051 views | jayessess |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 09:59 - Mar 19 by Guthrum |
The third alternative is you apply an absolute spending cap on wages and/or transfer fees, irrespective of revenue or funds. Such things exist in other sports (e.g. Formula One).
Sure, the top clubs would bleat about that not allowing "free competition", but it would also reduce their costs and make them more profitable. |
Personally, if I could wave a magic wand, I'd go with all sorts of egalitarian stuff like salary caps and fan ownership. But it's hard to see these days how you could disentangle what English football has become from global capital, against the will of pretty much everybody professionally involved in the game (and probably most of the people who watch it).
Premier League spending on transfer fees and wages is probably the central thing that makes it a global product. It's what draws in all those investors from across the world and makes the PL the only truly globalised league. That makes a tonne of money for players, managers, broadcasters, advertisers, the people who administer the game, people in a bunch of other related services. For the government it's a major cultural export, as well as an economic boon. Put in a salary cap, all those groups are convinced they lose the global status and they lose out, they'd fight it so hard. | |
| |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 14:15 - Mar 19 with 946 views | HighgateBlue |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 09:59 - Mar 19 by Guthrum |
The third alternative is you apply an absolute spending cap on wages and/or transfer fees, irrespective of revenue or funds. Such things exist in other sports (e.g. Formula One).
Sure, the top clubs would bleat about that not allowing "free competition", but it would also reduce their costs and make them more profitable. |
This is the funny thing about the obscene inflation we've seen in football over the last 30-40 years. Despite the huge quantities of money that have flowed into the game, the pantomime baddie owners are generally still not making a profit. We hate the evil money men who have ruined the game trying to make a buck (they generally don't make a buck, but I guess it must've been a useful money laundering tool for some). Which members of the football fraternity have really benefitted? It's the players. In the top divisions they now earn many times more than they ever did before, and yet we love them as much as ever.
We hate how money has ruined the game. We hate the owners who aren't making money. But we love the players, some of whom earn in a week more than Sir Bob's best players did in a career.
Football is now a business rather than a game, and yet it totally totally fails as a business. Go figure.
I would be in favour of the sort of controls you mention, even though the hated owners may actually end up better off. |  | | |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 14:40 - Mar 19 with 894 views | dowsie3 |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 09:32 - Mar 19 by Churchman |
Of course it’s all about the top clubs hoovering up the cash. All of it if possible. They are not the least interested in the well-being of the sport or competition. It’s all about £££. It’s all ars@ about face because without genuine competition, there is no sport.
This started with Sky in 1992 and I see no end to it. Even 30 years ago the money was skewed towards the important clubs and this ultimately destroys competition. We are now seeing the result. The rotting of the league from the bottom up.
Without change there will be a league of 10 to 16 clubs maximum, no relegation or promotion with just two or three clubs winning everything. This is the logical conclusion and one the owners of Man U, Man C, Arsenal, Spurs Liverpool, Chelsea would jump at the chance at.
The NFL model. But it isn’t because the NFL is built on the basis that the competition is the most important thing. That’s why the poorest performing teams get the first picks in the draft. Can anyone imagine Chelsea or Man City agreeing to anything like that?
I propose a permanent mini league of those clubs. They can play each other four times a year or whatever and play in their super league with Atheletico Pathetico and leave the rest to form a meaningful pyramid.
In the meantime, Forest crying ‘foul’ is laughable. They’re happy to take the PL riches, but not happy to abide by the rules. However unfair they perceive it to be (and it is), tough. They broke the rules. Given by breaking the rules they could relegate a club that didn’t, perhaps they should be relegated.
The people controlling football in this country are pathetic. But I suspect their ineptitude and weakness is well paid for, just as it is at an international level at FIFA and UEFA. |
Before sky was ever thought of the first sign of making the rich richer and the poor poorer was in 1983 ironically when Thatcher was PM . Before 83 when Ipswich played away to Man Utd Ipswich would get 20% of the gate receipts and when united came to Ipswich utd would get 20% of are gate receipts. Which made it a more level playing field as Utd averaged about 45000 and we averaged 20,000 But the big clubs complained about having to share their gate money and it got changed so the home club kept all the money and IMO that’s when the first division got less competitive. Look at the winners in the 70 s Everton Arsenal Derby Liverpool Leeds Nottingham Forest 6 different winners in 1 decade after 83 Liverpool Everton Arsenal and Leeds won the first division title in the next 10 years and all 4 of those teams we’re amongst the best supported teams in the country | | | |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 15:12 - Mar 19 with 822 views | Mookamoo |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 08:24 - Mar 19 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
As much as I hate ‘cheating’ I can’t help but feel FFP is just another way of keeping the monopoly of the top 5 or 6 clubs. And though parachute payments hurt the competitiveness of the Championship, without them it would be incredibly difficult for clubs like ours to try and ‘break in to the PL’ versus the established teams (ie you couldn’t get promoted and invest to stay up without that safety net).
On the other hand I worry about the sustainability and obscenity of English football, I’m just not sure FFP is the right way to police it. |
As we've seen with Forest, they gambled on the point reduction vs the hope they stay up. Failing that, they just come down with no point reduction and have parachute payments.
Why not link FFP with a point reduction, plus a financial penalty that has to be paid over the duration of the parachute payments, or maybe give them 5 years? That money is then be funnelled into grass roots or lower leagues.
It would force the likes of Leicester and Forest, should they come down, to have a bit of a fire sale and even things up in the Championship. |  | | |
| Destroying mobility in the football pyramid on 16:41 - Mar 19 with 676 views | Aviator |
Just scrap FFP and let them get on with it. If a club goes bust: tough. They can always start again from the bottom. I want to see obscene levels of wages - think of the income tax! Parachute payments should be scrapped though. That money should be distributed evenly. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
