The Footie Thread

[Don Barzini]

It’s not about which club has the richest owners

Newcastle have the richest owners do they not ?

I should have clarified by adding “in the years preceding the time when the rules were brought in.”

As I’ve said before, it’s legacy wealth. In the case of some clubs more than others, yes. But all of the Sky Six, however they got there, benefit from it. And as I’ve said, I get why their fans wouldn’t want a rule change. They don’t want to be challenged. Honestly, I understand.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I should have clarified by adding “in the years preceding the time when the rules were brought in.”

As I’ve said before, it’s legacy wealth. In the case of some clubs more than others, yes. But all of the Sky Six, however they got there, benefit from it. And as I’ve said, I get why their fans wouldn’t want a rule change. They don’t want to be challenged. Honestly, I understand.

Sky six
Protected 6
Big 6

I wonder what the clubs in the championship thought of Forest when they had bigger resources than those near the bottom



What’s the solution

What is it you think needs to change to enable Burnley to be able to compete against Liverpool in all aspects - despite the fact Liverpool spent decades building what they have

Tell me why a club should be able to get the same level of resources of another club that’s built it

And also why didn’t Forest build up to the same level - they have had access to wealth in the past to be able to build , they won titles and European Cups after breaking transfer records

So why are they not bringing in the wealth - is it perhaps because they were poorly run and now because they have a rich owner they want to use that to make that instant leap that other clubs earned

 

[Don Barzini]

Sky six
Protected 6
Big 6

I wonder what the clubs in the championship thought of Forest when they had bigger resources than those near the bottom



What’s the solution

What is it you think needs to change to enable Burnley to be able to compete against Liverpool in all aspects - despite the fact Liverpool spent decades building what they have

Tell me why a club should be able to get the same level of resources of another club that’s built it

And also why didn’t Forest build up to the same level - they have had access to wealth in the past to be able to build , they won titles and European Cups after breaking transfer records

So why are they not bringing in the wealth - is it perhaps because they were poorly run and now because they have a rich owner they want to use that to make that instant leap that other clubs earned

Arthur, I think we’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about merit in terms of running a club well, being self-sufficient, and building something long-term. Fair enough. But I’m talking about the structural advantage that some clubs now have because they were able to spend unchecked before the rules were tightened.

Forest, Villa, Newcastle — clubs with big histories and big fanbases — didn’t get to spend hundreds of millions in losses over a short period like Chelsea or City did when they were bought. The rules were brought in after those transformations happened. It’s not about crying for shortcuts — it’s about acknowledging that others were allowed shortcuts, and now that ladder’s been pulled up.

You ask about solutions. I’ve said before I don’t have answers because I’m not a football finance expert — but I don’t see why there couldn’t be a rebalanced version of PSR that allows more front-loaded investment for clubs trying to grow, tied to proper safeguards and business plans? That’s actually more in the spirit of sustainability than ring-fencing an elite that got in before the gates were closed.

You also mentioned Forest having bigger resources than some Championship clubs. Of course — that’s how leagues work. But the gap between Forest (at the time) and, say, Rotherham is a different universe compared to the one between Forest and Man City right now.

No one’s saying clubs should be able to spend anything, but if the goal is real competition — not just financial consolidation — then rules should encourage new growth, not just protect historic spending. Otherwise, it’s not a sport, it’s a cartel.

Kieran Maguire agrees with me anyway

 

[clubchamp98]

Are you seriously suggesting that if a player wants to leave a club,they should sign a new contract?
Sorry but how does that make sense??

Where did I say that.
Isak has a contract now.

 

[nickjdavis]

Where did I say that.
Isak has a contract now.

...and has rejected improved terms that have been offered (not the £300k p/wk that Isak allegedly wants).

 

[clubchamp98]

I should have clarified by adding “in the years preceding the time when the rules were brought in.”

As I’ve said before, it’s legacy wealth. In the case of some clubs more than others, yes. But all of the Sky Six, however they got there, benefit from it. And as I’ve said, I get why their fans wouldn’t want a rule change. They don’t want to be challenged. Honestly, I understand.

In the years before the rule changes Forest were a big club but you made decisions that cost you .
How far back do you want to go?

European champions ,first £1 million player .
Where did it all go wrong?

 

[clubchamp98]

...and has rejected improved terms that have been offered (not the £300k p/wk that Isak allegedly wants).

But he still has a contract.

 

[Don Barzini]

In the years before the rule changes Forest were a big club but you made decisions that cost you .
How far back do you want to go?

European champions ,first £1 million player .
Where did it all go wrong?

Sure, Forest were badly run for a long time. I would never and have never attempted to suggest otherwise. It’s exactly why we fell behind. But bad ownership in the past shouldn’t mean you’re permanently locked out of competing in the future.

The issue isn’t about who messed up 20 years ago — it’s that clubs who were allowed to spend huge losses during their rebuild (like Chelsea or City) are now protected by rules that stop anyone else doing the same.

Look at Man United — they’ve been badly run for years now, but their legacy wealth keeps them competitive and commercially dominant. That kind of safety net isn’t available to clubs trying to grow now under PSR. If any club outside the Sky Six was run the way United have been for the last few years, they would be struggling in League Two.

Legacy wealth is now being treated as something that must be preserved — while others are told to just ‘earn it’ with one hand tied behind their back. How’s that fair competition?

The Cartel like to lecture other teams about earning success - right after they locked and bolted the gates behind them.

 

[Swango1980]

Sure, Forest were badly run for a long time. I would never and have never attempted to suggest otherwise. It’s exactly why we fell behind. But bad ownership in the past shouldn’t mean you’re permanently locked out of competing in the future.

The issue isn’t about who messed up 20 years ago — it’s that clubs who were allowed to spend huge losses during their rebuild (like Chelsea or City) are now protected by rules that stop anyone else doing the same.

Look at Man United — they’ve been badly run for years now, but their legacy wealth keeps them competitive and commercially dominant. That kind of safety net isn’t available to clubs trying to grow now under PSR. If any club outside the Sky Six was run the way United have been for the last few years, they would be struggling in League Two.

Legacy wealth is now being treated as something that must be preserved — while others are told to just ‘earn it’ with one hand tied behind their back. How’s that fair competition?

The Cartel like to lecture other teams about earning success - right after they locked and bolted the gates behind them.

So, Man Utd were the laughing stock last year for being so uncompetitive. But, for this argument, they are now considered as competitive again.

If Man Utd continue to be run so poorly, they will sink further. While other well run clubs will rise. But, the whole process can take many years. The PL is such a global brand now, Utd have built up hundreds of millions of fans, so the money will come in for a fair period based on the legacy they built.

Forest missed that bus, or at least fell off the PL bus early on. So, it'll take them a long time to catch up.

If Forest win 6 or 7 PL titles in the next decade, you to will enjoy the legacy wealth you have in 2036.

 

[Neilds]

Arthur, I think we’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about merit in terms of running a club well, being self-sufficient, and building something long-term. Fair enough. But I’m talking about the structural advantage that some clubs now have because they were able to spend unchecked before the rules were tightened.

Forest, Villa, Newcastle — clubs with big histories and big fanbases — didn’t get to spend hundreds of millions in losses over a short period like Chelsea or City did when they were bought. The rules were brought in after those transformations happened. It’s not about crying for shortcuts — it’s about acknowledging that others were allowed shortcuts, and now that ladder’s been pulled up.

You ask about solutions. I’ve said before I don’t have answers because I’m not a football finance expert — but I don’t see why there couldn’t be a rebalanced version of PSR that allows more front-loaded investment for clubs trying to grow, tied to proper safeguards and business plans? That’s actually more in the spirit of sustainability than ring-fencing an elite that got in before the gates were closed.

You also mentioned Forest having bigger resources than some Championship clubs. Of course — that’s how leagues work. But the gap between Forest (at the time) and, say, Rotherham is a different universe compared to the one between Forest and Man City right now.

No one’s saying clubs should be able to spend anything, but if the goal is real competition — not just financial consolidation — then rules should encourage new growth, not just protect historic spending. Otherwise, it’s not a sport, it’s a cartel.

Kieran Maguire agrees with me anyway

Hey, don't bring the Mighty Millers into this! We know how to run a club badly, loads of administration and docked points in the noughties, playing at an old athletics stadium as we were homeless for a while.

 

[Don Barzini]

So, Man Utd were the laughing stock last year for being so uncompetitive. But, for this argument, they are now considered as competitive again.

If Man Utd continue to be run so poorly, they will sink further. While other well run clubs will rise. But, the whole process can take many years. The PL is such a global brand now, Utd have built up hundreds of millions of fans, so the money will come in for a fair period based on the legacy they built.

Forest missed that bus, or at least fell off the PL bus early on. So, it'll take them a long time to catch up.

If Forest win 6 or 7 PL titles in the next decade, you to will enjoy the legacy wealth you have in 2036.

Exactly — you’ve just made my point. United have been badly run for years, but their legacy wealth, global fanbase, and commercial deals keep them competitive. Everyone else, including those who ‘fell off the bus’ before the money exploded, are now told to rebuild slowly without being allowed to invest the way United, Chelsea or City once did.

So we’re basically told: ‘Wait a few decades, run everything perfectly, and maybe you’ll be allowed to catch up — but don’t try to accelerate the process like others did, because the rules changed after they succeeded.’

That’s not a meritocracy. That’s a closed shop. The legacy rich get a cushion, the rest get compliance.

And let’s be honest — the idea of Forest (or anyone club outside the Circle of Protection) winning 6 or 7 Premier League titles in the next decade isn’t just unlikely, it’s practically impossible under the current rules. That’s the whole point. No one is suggesting anyone should have guarantees — just the chance to compete on terms that aren’t rigged in favour of the legacy wealthy.

And just to clarify - I am not talking about “Forest” here in my arguments (though I get people are coming back at me about them because they’re the team I support). I am talking about everyone else in general terms. I’d love to see anyone outside the Sky Six have a real chance (apart from Derby of course!)

 

[Neilds]

Some people seem to be making a few big assumptions here regarding rich owners.

1. Rich owner does not always equal big expenditure. You don't stay rich spending millions through a football club.
2. Rich owner spending loads does not mean a well run club. Money needs to be spent wisely on the correct players/staff at the right price. If you need a centre forward, buy one, don't buy 3 defenders for £200 mil just because you can.

 

[Slime]

And let’s be honest — the idea of Forest (or anyone club outside the Circle of Protection) winning 6 or 7 Premier League titles in the next decade isn’t just unlikely, it’s practically impossible under the current rules. That’s the whole point. No one is suggesting anyone should have guarantees — just the chance to compete on terms that aren’t rigged in favour of the legacy wealthy.

And just to clarify - I am not talking about “Forest” here in my arguments (though I get people are coming back at me about them because they’re the team I support). I am talking about everyone else in general terms. I’d love to see anyone outside the Sky Six have a real chance (apart from Derby of course!)

Notts County?

 

[Swango1980]

Exactly — you’ve just made my point. United have been badly run for years, but their legacy wealth, global fanbase, and commercial deals keep them competitive. Everyone else, including those who ‘fell off the bus’ before the money exploded, are now told to rebuild slowly without being allowed to invest the way United, Chelsea or City once did.

So we’re basically told: ‘Wait a few decades, run everything perfectly, and maybe you’ll be allowed to catch up — but don’t try to accelerate the process like others did, because the rules changed after they succeeded.’

That’s not a meritocracy. That’s a closed shop. The legacy rich get a cushion, the rest get compliance.

And let’s be honest — the idea of Forest (or anyone club outside the Circle of Protection) winning 6 or 7 Premier League titles in the next decade isn’t just unlikely, it’s practically impossible under the current rules. That’s the whole point. No one is suggesting anyone should have guarantees — just the chance to compete on terms that aren’t rigged in favour of the legacy wealthy.

And just to clarify - I am not talking about “Forest” here in my arguments (though I get people are coming back at me about them because they’re the team I support). I am talking about everyone else in general terms. I’d love to see anyone outside the Sky Six have a real chance (apart from Derby of course!)

Forest did compete last year. Would have been in Champions League had it not been for a drop off.

But the clubs that are consistently at the top, are the clubs that have been almost consistently good for decades. Clubs that have built up generations of fans. Which means today, there are probably hundreds times more fans (for and not for the clubs) who take interest in how clubs like Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal do than care about how Forest do. If Man Utd lose a single game, there would be more chat about that across the world than if Forest got relegate (although Forest's owner has probably made them a fairly unlikable club, so perhaps there would be a fair amount of joyful chat ). So, if Forest or other clubs wish to be at the level of those clubs, it takes many many years to basically build the fan base and commercial opportunities.

Man City and Chelsea joined the party randomly, because they had rich owners. No one else liked that. Not just fans of big clubs, but lower clubs they left in their wake. Rules mean that can't happen now, yet there are still complaints.

Even if a rich owner bought a club now and were able to spend all their money, it probably wouldn't be so effective. Because the "Top 6" would have been able to splash their cash around for many years previous, and continue to do so. There is less incentive to go to Newcastle for huge money, if the player can go to Man City, Chelsea, Man Utd or Liverpool for huge money. Whereas when City and Chelsea began splashing the money, they were pretty much way ahead of all the other clubs in what they could spend.

 

[Don Barzini]

Notts County?

“Meh” to be honest!

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Arthur, I think we’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about merit in terms of running a club well, being self-sufficient, and building something long-term. Fair enough. But I’m talking about the structural advantage that some clubs now have because they were able to spend unchecked before the rules were tightened.

Why are you lumping the same teams together - surely a club building through merit is what everyone wants to see ?

Forest, Villa, Newcastle — clubs with big histories and big fanbases — didn’t get to spend hundreds of millions in losses over a short period like Chelsea or City did when they were bought. The rules were brought in after those transformations happened. It’s not about crying for shortcuts — it’s about acknowledging that others were allowed shortcuts, and now that ladder’s been pulled up.

So it’s just Chelsea and city that have the issue then - when it was happening everyone was universal about them buying everything and wanting rules changed to stop it happening - yet when it’s happens those that complained back then now want to do the same as City and Chelsea ?

Newcastle spent fortunes during the 90’s

Forest weren’t shy when they were spending

They didn’t build on it

You ask about solutions. I’ve said before I don’t have answers because I’m not a football finance expert — but I don’t see why there couldn’t be a rebalanced version of PSR that allows more front-loaded investment for clubs trying to grow, tied to proper safeguards and business plans? That’s actually more in the spirit of sustainability than ring-fencing an elite that got in before the gates were closed.

So basically you want to see rich owners being able to spend more - how is that fair then if your club doesn’t have a rich owner that’s willing to fund and stand up a club ?

So it’s then down to which club has the richest owner - is that fair ?

You also mentioned Forest having bigger resources than some Championship clubs. Of course — that’s how leagues work. But the gap between Forest (at the time) and, say, Rotherham is a different universe compared to the one between Forest and Man City right now.

You are right - that’s how leagues work ? Why is it ok to work that way in the championship and not ok to work in the Prem ?

Is it because now the clubs that dominated in championship don’t in the Prem

No one’s saying clubs should be able to spend anything, but if the goal is real competition — not just financial consolidation — then rules should encourage new growth, not just protect historic spending. Otherwise, it’s not a sport, it’s a cartel.

Kieran Maguire agrees with me anyway

Clubs are encouraged to grow

Spurs owner financed a brand new stadium at £1bn to bring in the growth , we spent 15 years building the club back up

Arsenal spent years building up

Even Man Utd earned their money by buying and selling smart and building off the field

The issue is some fans want that be at that level in an instant , there is believe that just because they have a rich owner they don’t have to be patient and build , they want it now

 

[Don Barzini]

Forest did compete last year. Would have been in Champions League had it not been for a drop off.

But the clubs that are consistently at the top, are the clubs that have been almost consistently good for decades. Clubs that have built up generations of fans. Which means today, there are probably hundreds times more fans (for and not for the clubs) who take interest in how clubs like Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal do than care about how Forest do. If Man Utd lose a single game, there would be more chat about that across the world than if Forest got relegate (although Forest's owner has probably made them a fairly unlikable club, so perhaps there would be a fair amount of joyful chat ). So, if Forest or other clubs wish to be at the level of those clubs, it takes many many years to basically build the fan base and commercial opportunities.

Man City and Chelsea joined the party randomly, because they had rich owners. No one else liked that. Not just fans of big clubs, but lower clubs they left in their wake. Rules mean that can't happen now, yet there are still complaints.

Even if a rich owner bought a club now and were able to spend all their money, it probably wouldn't be so effective. Because the "Top 6" would have been able to splash their cash around for many years previous, and continue to do so. There is less incentive to go to Newcastle for huge money, if the player can go to Man City, Chelsea, Man Utd or Liverpool for huge money. Whereas when City and Chelsea began splashing the money, they were pretty much way ahead of all the other clubs in what they could spend.

Yes, Forest can compete — up to a point. But the reality is, we can’t build quickly, even with ambition and good ownership, because the system now blocks the kind of front-loaded investment that City and Chelsea were allowed. We fell off at the end because we had virtually zero strength in squad depth and our players all looked knackered! As an example, in the FA Cup semi final we had injuries/suspensions at full back. So we had to play our 19-year old Youth Academy centre back ant left back instead, up against Omar Marmoush! Later in the game, he went off injured and so to replace him on came our 3rd/4th choice right winger! Meanwhile, City are bringing on Gubdogan, Doku and Foden!

You’re absolutely right that clubs like United, Liverpool and Arsenal have built global fanbases over decades. But part of the reason they could do that is they were never financially capped while they grew. If today’s PSR rules had existed in the ’90s and 2000s, I doubt even they’d have risen the same way.

City and Chelsea did ‘crash the party’ — and the rules were changed after that to stop it happening again. But the problem is: now only they get to stay at the top table, while others are locked out. That’s what people are frustrated about — not the success, but the fact that no one else is allowed to try anymore.

As you said yourself, even if someone rich buys a club now, it’s unlikely they’ll catch up — because they can’t use the same tools that others did. That’s the whole point. The rules don’t create sustainability — they freeze the hierarchy.

 

[Tashyboy]

The club also let his contract run down.
It’s not down to the player to make sure the club get a fee for him.

I think one of the points which was missed re the TTA saga was that Real Madrid have been very clever in the sense of snapping up players whose contract has run down. They don’t pay a large transfer fee and the player gets more of a weekly wage. The best example being Mbappe. Am sure Madrid are masters of shithousery when it comes to encouraging players to run down contracts

 

[Hobbit]

Some people seem to be making a few big assumptions here regarding rich owners.

1. Rich owner does not always equal big expenditure. You don't stay rich spending millions through a football club.
2. Rich owner spending loads does not mean a well run club. Money needs to be spent wisely on the correct players/staff at the right price. If you need a centre forward, buy one, don't buy 3 defenders for £200 mil just because you can.

Rich owners of any business usually spend the bank’s money, acting as guarantors for the loans.

Even Liverpool who, allegedly, only spend what they earn took out a £300m(?) loan for infrastructure spending. It’s how big business runs. All the bank is interested in is collateral to cover the loan if there’s a default and income to service the debt.

Unfortunately, PSR only takes into account what a club earns, not what an owner earns from outside interests.

 

[Tashyboy]

Sure, Forest were badly run for a long time. I would never and have never attempted to suggest otherwise. It’s exactly why we fell behind. But bad ownership in the past shouldn’t mean you’re permanently locked out of competing in the future.

The issue isn’t about who messed up 20 years ago — it’s that clubs who were allowed to spend huge losses during their rebuild (like Chelsea or City) are now protected by rules that stop anyone else doing the same.

Look at Man United — they’ve been badly run for years now, but their legacy wealth keeps them competitive and commercially dominant. That kind of safety net isn’t available to clubs trying to grow now under PSR. If any club outside the Sky Six was run the way United have been for the last few years, they would be struggling in League Two.

Legacy wealth is now being treated as something that must be preserved — while others are told to just ‘earn it’ with one hand tied behind their back. How’s that fair competition?

The Cartel like to lecture other teams about earning success - right after they locked and bolted the gates behind them.

But it’s not just legacy wealth, look at the last club World Cup. City and Chelsea qualified and were not even champions of there league, nor finished in the top two. FIFA, UEFA and the premier league is now set up to protect the old guard.

The bottom line is that even if City are found guilty of 115 charges. The problems with FFP, PSR or whatever they call it still remain for the majority of football clubs.