Euro 96, that was a great summer, my dad had bought his first pub, I was 13, and we watched most of the games on a massive screen in his bar. Not sure what the rules were in those days on pub broadcasting of football, or whether was dad was breaking them, but I just remember loading up on coca cola and scampi fries and watching Gazza and the boys do their thing. USA 94, as we never qualified, all I remember is Diana Ross' penalty **** up in the opening ceremony, and Baggio's god awful mullet pony tail (though I am sure he remembers his god awful penalty miss more than anything)
Yes they benefited from lucrative tv deals, but it still created an unfairness, the teams below them couldn't compete, then parachute payments were brought in and created a two tier system. The parachute payments created an uneven playing field that filters its way down the chain. Then you had the Russian money at Chelsea, then you got Spurs spending a Billion quid on a football stadium, even if they can afford it, imagine that some decades back, spending £1B on a fooking ground. We all know FIFA and UEFA are corrupt, why not the Prem, and you really want me to care about what Man City are doing, you fooking deserve them mate, it makes me laugh when I see Pep doing a clean sweep, rattling cages, about time someone opened this Pandora's box, we've gone from the days of brown envelopes to dodgy sponsorships deals, take a taste of your own medicine I say. During covid you fookers were crying over the possibility of having to pay £10 a game on tv, whereas the lower league fans had been paying that for years. So suck it bro, Arteta bottled it again, same old same old. The only people that care about this is the top six teams, because everyone else gave up caring years ago. City took the top sixes silverware so the dummies have come out the pram.
Who are the usual suspects then? Liverpool City Utd Chelsea Arsenal Spurs got in once Even Leicester did Villa this year Quite a few clubs there.
Rich guys have always run football clubs- particularly the more successful ones - and with the possible exception of Everton ... nobody is coming in to bail anybody out - they're already here - you must have been sleeping ... sorry to wake you
Didnt FSG bail out Liverpool, who were hours away from administration under the ownership of Hicks and Gillett?
But if you continually spend more then you can afford at some point there will be consequences and a new rich guy has to turn up and if he doesn't you go bust and that doesn't help the PL brand so they put some rules in place. Seems fair enough to me. Break the rules you get fined and points deducted, suck it up up buttercup.
Yes came very close. Can't say I know the details but I'm sure it's out there somewhere. Think it was the owners loading their debut onto the club other than us spending from what I remember.
It all began in June 1993 at the Old Bailey when we first heard of a 'bung'. Alan Sugar claimed in court that Terry Venables had told him that a transfer involving Teddy Sheringham leaving Nottingham Forest for Tottenham Hotspur would proceed more quickly if the then Forest manager Brian Clough was given "a bung". That revelation that a brown envelope containing cash was to be handed over at a motorway service station, led to the bung inquiry instigated by the F.A. Only the then Arsenal manager George Graham was found to be guilty of receiving money as part of a transfer deal, although many other rumours abounded. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/1616896/2020/02/21/george-graham-arsenal-sacked-25-years/ 'Offshore trust funds' then joined 'bung' in football's vocabulary for the first time.The influx of foreign players on transfers that were officially regarded as "free", following the Bosman ruling, but which in effect were far from it, made the task of monitoring incomings and outgoings ever more difficult to perform as Graham Taylor pointed out. This was later followed by newspaper and media exposé when a number of agents were recorded unknowingly, revealing the "greed" in English football, and exposing allegations of an "under the table culture" that threatened to destabilise the state of the game in this country. The advent of the Premier League in 1992 only exacerbated the sitution as English football's top division became awash with unprecedented amounts of cash, mainly from television rights deals. With such riches at stake, and cuts from some £1.5bn of transfer deals per year up for grabs, there was clear potential for agents and other middlemen, in some cases, to make secret and illegal subsequent payments to third parties to help them seal transfers. With the top clubs now awash with cash, UEFA introduced financial fair play (FFP) in an attempt to prevent clubs that qualify for its competitions from spending beyond their means and stamp out what their then president Michael Platini called "financial doping" within football. This led to nine clubs being found to have breached the FFP criteria in the first assessment period, most notably Man City and Paris St-Germain, and a range of fines and sanctions were imposed. Man City were fined £49m, £32m of which was suspended, had spending restrictions imposed and could only name a 21-man Champions League squad for 2014-15. Now, following German newspaper Der Spiegel publishing leaked documents in November 2018 alleging Manchester City had inflated the value of a sponsorship deal, misleading European football's governing body, the club have been banned from European club competition for the next two seasons and fined £25m.
Eh? When the premier league was set up, everyone was equal party to it. I have no idea where this idea United were just given money by Sky comes from, because it is utter made up bollocks. Everyone in that league had the same opportunities with the PL and Sky etc., including City as it goes.
That whole tournament for me was the first one I really followed from start to finish. Had memories of odd games before that, but Italia 90 was definitely the "beginning" of properly following football for me.
FWIW i actually agree with most of that If FFP is to be used it needs to be fair and correct I would have no objections to a set amount per team As detailed earlier I would have no objections to only being able to sign x amount of players out of your area once those rules are set though I believe they have to be followed someone tried to explain to Pinkie earlier that Arsenals success is based upon cheating I agree with that also I also think Liverpool paid the highest wages to lure players in their pomp but rules need to be in place to prevent Clubs from taking advantage- you cannot rely on playing within the ethos of the game even with the two suggestions made at the start - ie everyone having x amount to spend doesn’t work because of geographical issues ie if you were a London club paying £10,000 per week your players would be getting a lot less for the money because of the area they are residing in Either way Whatever I say basically has zero effect on what’s happening so what does it actually matter
Not really mate - the CL spots have been a bit of a monopoly for the top 6 in your list: 23/24 = 3 - Newcastle the exception 22/23 = 4 21/22 = 4 20/21 = 4 19/20 = 4 18/19 = 4 17/18 = 4 16/17 = 3 - Leicester City the exception 15/16 = 4 14/15 = 4 13/14 = 4 12/13 = 4 11/12 = 4 10/11 = 4 09/10 = 4 08/09 = 4 07/08 = 4 06/07 = 4 05/06 = 3 - Everton the exception 04/05 = 4 03/04 = 3 - Newcastle the exception 02/03 = 3 - Newcastle the exception 01/02 = 3 of 3 00/01 = 2 of 3 - Leeds the exception Sure it has nothing to do with spending
