The Footie Thread

[Arthur Wedge]

If all financial restrictions are removed it then becomes an open door for clubs to be owned by sovereign states and becomes a battle of which one of them has the most trillions

City “potentially” breaking 115 rules he allowed them to win 6 out of the last 7 titles - it’s a level of dominance never seen and will continue

 

[GB72]

If all financial restrictions are removed it then becomes an open door for clubs to be owned by sovereign states and becomes a battle of which one of them has the most trillions

City “potentially” breaking 115 rules he allowed them to win 6 out of the last 7 titles - it’s a level of dominance never seen and will continue

I suppose you could argue that by allowing everyone to spend, you level the playing field on spending at the top of the table and could actually get more competition as opposed to less. Whilst not something I like, if everyone is spending billions then it again becomes more even and a challenge of player skill and management in the same way that limiting everyone to a lower budget would work (which I advocate). I guess it does not matter where you set the marker on the spending scale, if everyone has the opportunity to be equal then you get competition.

The genie is out of the bottle with football and he ain't going back. The only change will be when the mega rich get fed up of restrictions and sharing money with the lesser clubs and set up on their own in a league aimed at a global not a national audience.

 

[larmen]

Kane is not going to play this weekend and not going to break Lewandowski's record.
Not sure what it is and if it affects the European Championships.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I suppose you could argue that by allowing everyone to spend, you level the playing field on spending at the top of the table and could actually get more competition as opposed to less. Whilst not something I like, if everyone is spending billions then it again becomes more even and a challenge of player skill and management in the same way that limiting everyone to a lower budget would work (which I advocate). I guess it does not matter where you set the marker on the spending scale, if everyone has the opportunity to be equal then you get competition.

The genie is out of the bottle with football and he ain't going back. The only change will be when the mega rich get fed up of restrictions and sharing money with the lesser clubs and set up on their own in a league aimed at a global not a national audience.

Unless you have 20 states out there with trillions in the bank it’s going to be a battle between Saudi and Dubai and Saudi has more

I have no idea what needs to happen but any rules put in place or no rules then someone won’t be happy

 

[Slime]

But the rules, rightly or wrongly, were in place and City are deemed to have broken them, therefore, they have to be penalised.
Surely, it's that simple.

 

[GB72]

Unless you have 20 states out there with trillions in the bank it’s going to be a battle between Saudi and Dubai and Saudi has more

I have no idea what needs to happen but any rules put in place or no rules then someone won’t be happy

What needs to happen is that you have spending capped on transfers and wages at a level set based on the median income from the clubs in the league. That gives parity.

What will happen is that the level of greed and desire to spend of the top clubs will outgrow the league and this will happen across Europe and perhaps even globally. The bigger clubs will become frustrated that they have to share money with the smaller clubs and the Super League will return. Thing is, next time the clubs will go into it with a TV deal in place and on the understanding that they can earn more from sports tourism than from traditional fans, they can move their matches around the globe when they want and earn more from a massive global TV deal shared amongst a small number of teams.

It may be way away but the day will come when that fan rebellion over a super league will mean nothing. In a nuclear option, a Premier League club to easily relocate to Asia to play matches in a global super league, the home fans will mean nothing.

 

[GB72]

But the rules, rightly or wrongly, were in place and City are deemed to have broken them, therefore, they have to be penalised.
Surely, it's that simple.

Very true but with the Middle East money and influence, do you think that the penalty will be anything more than financial.

They bought the World Cup, this is pretty small fry in comparison and there really are only a few clubs and officials that seem to care.

 

[Norrin Radd]

The premier league should be set up like the NFL ,a certain amount of money to play with ,how you do it is up to you but it includes everything. Even shirt sales are through the NFL, and the teams get an equal share .

 

[Swango1980]

The sad fact is that money and big spending is necessary for success. it does not guarantee success but lack of spending in most cases means that success will not be forthcoming. It may not be seen as fair that a new owner can spend their club above their peers but is it any fairer that other clubs can already spend more. Football has made itself a sport about money as much as anything else and I cannot see that changing.

In an ideal world, give the clubs the same budget every year, that would give you a great league. If not, let clubs spend as much as they like as long as it is not translated into club debt. If the owner wants to spend billions of their own money to win then let them. Hopefully that even clearer definition of money bringing success may bring about the revolt by other clubs to put a stop to it in the long term.

In my personal opinion, I think the absolute reverse would be the case.

Globally, how many fans are there that support the top 6-10 clubs in the Premier league? How many support the most successful clubs over a 10/20 year period. Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, fans, and many many more City, Chelsea, Spurs fans than there were once upon a time. These clubs did not build up a fan base because they had one or 2 good seasons. It is the sustained period towards the top of the table that generates interest. And, of course, every now and then you gat another club that breaks through and competes at, or nearly at that level, which also generates excitement.

If every club just had the same budget, then over a bit of time, the team that ends up winning becomes a lot more random. Fair enough, that sounds like a great idea in principle. But, in reality, I think it kills off the interest. First of all, the millions and millions of fans that currently support Man Utd, Liverpool, City, Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea are more likely to become frustrated as they become less and less able to compete towards the top of the table on a consistent basis. A few of these clubs are more likely to get relegated sooner or later, and that completely kills the interest in the league for many. Sure, other clubs have the chance to rise and compete at the top, I can definitely see that being appealing for clubs who are lower down at the moment. But, it is also likely that they'll never be able to build on that (with all the money they are making for being successful), and lose that success as quickly as they found it. They'll less likely be able to establish themselves long enough to build a global fan base.

And, anyway, what would be the point in being incredibly successful, if the money you make cannot really be used to better your team relative to others? A lot of excitement in football these days, like Championship Play Off, avoiding relegation or giant killings in FA Cup is not just because a team did well, but it is also because of the rewards they get.

Don't get me wrong, not saying it should become a case were just one club dominates every single season as they have so much money and get a lot of fans. Because, then it goes the other way. That just gets boring. But, I think we are in a sweet spot area, where at the beginning of each season you have at least 4-6 clubs who have ambitions to compete for the title, and maybe a few more than that that aim to end in Top 4/5. It means there is competition, hopefully you'll have 2/3 still fighting it out at the end of the season, and you'll have teams disappointed as there are more teams fighting for fewer places at the top. You also have teams that know they'll be near the bottom, and so early on it is fun to see those that get off to really strong starts, while other maybe get dragged towards relegation who were not expecting to be there.

And, of course, teams do break the mould and push themselves towards the top, and it is fun to see how they do, and can they sustain it over a few season? We had Leicester which was incredible. Aston Villa this season have been amazing, Newcastle have done really well the last 2 seasons (especially considering injuries), and Brighton are a team I'd never have even given a second thought about a few seasons back. Nor even Brentford. I think the achievements of these clubs becomes even more impressive when they rise the table, and push the established clubs below them. Whereas, if you could get to the point where all 20 teams were sort of on equal footing at the start of the season, to me football would just become a lot more random and less interesting. Because, as people, many of us would happily see our own club be the best every season, or at least always competing at the top. But, beyond that, many of us like the underdog. We love seeing the other big clubs we don't support struggling, and we enjoy seeing the small clubs over-achieve.

There seems to be a contradiction. On one hand people say that the money in football is destroying football. And yet on the other hand, people are saying the Premier League is the greatest league in the world. It has more fans than it has ever had before. So, I suspect football hasn't been destroyed yet. I think VAR will destroy football long before the money kills it

 

[GB72]

In my personal opinion, I think the absolute reverse would be the case.

Globally, how many fans are there that support the top 6-10 clubs in the Premier league? How many support the most successful clubs over a 10/20 year period. Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, fans, and many many more City, Chelsea, Spurs fans than there were once upon a time. These clubs did not build up a fan base because they had one or 2 good seasons. It is the sustained period towards the top of the table that generates interest. And, of course, every now and then you gat another club that breaks through and competes at, or nearly at that level, which also generates excitement.

If every club just had the same budget, then over a bit of time, the team that ends up winning becomes a lot more random. Fair enough, that sounds like a great idea in principle. But, in reality, I think it kills off the interest. First of all, the millions and millions of fans that currently support Man Utd, Liverpool, City, Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea are more likely to become frustrated as they become less and less able to compete towards the top of the table on a consistent basis. A few of these clubs are more likely to get relegated sooner or later, and that completely kills the interest in the league for many. Sure, other clubs have the chance to rise and compete at the top, I can definitely see that being appealing for clubs who are lower down at the moment. But, it is also likely that they'll never be able to build on that (with all the money they are making for being successful), and lose that success as quickly as they found it. They'll less likely be able to establish themselves long enough to build a global fan base.

And, anyway, what would be the point in being incredibly successful, if the money you make cannot really be used to better your team relative to others? A lot of excitement in football these days, like Championship Play Off, avoiding relegation or giant killings in FA Cup is not just because a team did well, but it is also because of the rewards they get.

Don't get me wrong, not saying it should become a case were just one club dominates every single season as they have so much money and get a lot of fans. Because, then it goes the other way. That just gets boring. But, I think we are in a sweet spot area, where at the beginning of each season you have at least 4-6 clubs who have ambitions to compete for the title, and maybe a few more than that that aim to end in Top 4/5. It means there is competition, hopefully you'll have 2/3 still fighting it out at the end of the season, and you'll have teams disappointed as there are more teams fighting for fewer places at the top. You also have teams that know they'll be near the bottom, and so early on it is fun to see those that get off to really strong starts, while other maybe get dragged towards relegation who were not expecting to be there.

And, of course, teams do break the mould and push themselves towards the top, and it is fun to see how they do, and can they sustain it over a few season? We had Leicester which was incredible. Aston Villa this season have been amazing, Newcastle have done really well the last 2 seasons (especially considering injuries), and Brighton are a team I'd never have even given a second thought about a few seasons back. Nor even Brentford. I think the achievements of these clubs becomes even more impressive when they rise the table, and push the established clubs below them. Whereas, if you could get to the point where all 20 teams were sort of on equal footing at the start of the season, to me football would just become a lot more random and less interesting. Because, as people, many of us would happily see our own club be the best every season, or at least always competing at the top. But, beyond that, many of us like the underdog. We love seeing the other big clubs we don't support struggling, and we enjoy seeing the small clubs over-achieve.

There seems to be a contradiction. On one hand people say that the money in football is destroying football. And yet on the other hand, people are saying the Premier League is the greatest league in the world. It has more fans than it has ever had before. So, I suspect football hasn't been destroyed yet. I think VAR will destroy football long before the money kills it

I just like to see a tight sporting competition where everyone has a chance of finishing top or bottom on day one of the season. Not fussed about global audiences or anything else. I still believe that sport is about the thrill of close competition but that is old fashioned.

I actually can see both points as being correct, the Premier League can be both the greatest league in the world (talent, managers, history etc) but the money can also be destroying the game as it has also developed a league where money is everything. The elite few clubs in Europe are pretty much responsible for wage and transfer fee inflation that, quite helpfully, prices other clubs out of reaching their level.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791489174815617198

Good luck to him , club in a great place right now

 

[Pin-seeker]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791489174815617198

Good luck to him , club in a great place right now

Coming in after 2 average seasons could be a blessing.
Might take a bit of pressure off him?

 

[Pin-seeker]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791499021980197171

well deserved.
Hopefully Southgate uses him in the Euros.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791499021980197171

well deserved.
Hopefully Southgate uses him in the Euros.

Don't be silly. That will be Rashford and Sterling

 

[Pin-seeker]

Don't be silly. That will be Rashford and Sterling

surely he can’t even consider them 2 or Henderson

But it’s Southgate

 

[Bunkermagnet]

surely he can’t even consider them 2 or Henderson

But it’s Southgate

Perhaps he's thinking about Utd next season......

 

[Pin-seeker]

Perhaps he's thinking about Utd next season......

100% that’s not happening.
Would be funny tho.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Heck of a season for Palmer. Remarkable that he is the stand out player there, at his age, first year. Impressive self confidence that he is backing up week after week.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Heck of a season for Palmer. Remarkable that he is the stand out player there, at his age, first year. Impressive self confidence that he is backing up week after week.

Credit to him for leaving City to play more football.
If he was still at City he’d have no chance of going to the Euros & no one would be talking about him.

That’s not a dig at City,the competition there is just hard to get a run in the team.

 

[Swango1980]

Palmer has to be a certainty for England. Like, even with Southgate in charge, I'm almost 100% he'll make the squad.

Likewise, I'm almost 100% sure Phillips and Sterling will not make it.

Players like Mainoo, Rashford and Henderson I just don't know. Rashford and Henderson would be very lucky to make the squad, Mainoo very unlucky to miss out. But I wouldn't put money on any player either way.