Don't think the likes of St Helens, Wigan, Leeds ,Hull FC, Warrington want them
Last edited:
‘the biggest shake-up in football in a generation’
- Thread starter DMD
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Not only did the plans get resoundingly rejected during this emergency meeting, apparently as many as 16 of the PL clubs were against it, maybe more.
Hopefully that tells Liverpool and Man United's Yankee contingent to **** off with the power grab.
The rest of the deal could work, but the power grab? **** off.
Ironically we have a system called fair play, which should be about levelling up how football finance works. Man City case proves its full of loopholes, and only results in big clubs staying big, and clubs with potential to match them (Leeds Utd (spit), Sunderland, Forest...? ) being prevented from having a big billionaire owner being willing to bank roll their squads, the same way Chelsea, Man City etc have done......
K
Kalman
Guest
Wolves are absolutely loaded. They could do what the Sheiks and Abramovich did but they can't because of FFP. And yet, they've still managed to become a top-half team with a very talented squad who could push for top 6 (maybe even top 4) this season.
I think the owners of Villa and Leicester have even more dosh than Wolves, but as you say, they can never get near the pre-FFP giants because of FFP.
FFP doesn't even the playing field like the big wigs claim, it just cements those at the top remaining there. Hence why they all seem to hate the relative newboys of Man City.
Plenty of money in the Premier League but even more in the Champions League, when you're relying on that income to pay the bills it's easy to see why they don't want any competition for the top 4 or 5 league places.
K
Kalman
Guest
People make out like Man City are the worse culprit as well when Chelsea were just as gash, if not more so, as Man City before Abramovic's money. In fact, to call Man City a 'small club' before their new owners is odd since they had more trophies than Chelsea did before Abrahmovic. If Man City are considered a 'small club' that bought their way to success, Chelsea did too.
The new proposed rules by Liverpool and Man Utd just want to cement the renewed success of the former and the waning success of the latter.
Only goal difference kept them out of the top six last season.
Despite the power of the traditional top six, there's actually more teams challenging for the top six places at the moment, Everton, Leicester, Wolves are all capable beating anyone on their day and Arsenal and Man United are still busy ****ing everything up.
To be fair, Chelsea had qualified for the Champions League on multiple occasions before the money came in and had won a few things in the 90s/early 00s, so they weren't complete gash. In comparison, Man City had been in League One less than a decade before the money came in and had won nowt since the 70s.